Pineda-Aguila v. United States Presidential et al

1
3:25-cv-03321-CAB-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROSA ADRIANER PINEDA-AGUILA,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, and UNITED
STATES MILITARY
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-03321-CAB-SBC
ORDER:
(1) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS &
DISMISSING COMPLAINT;
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
On November 26, 2025, Plaintiff Rosa Adrianer Pineda-Aguila, proceeding pro se,
filed a complaint against Defendants “United States Presidential” [sic] and “United States
Military.” [Doc. No. 1 at 1.] Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28
U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead, she filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 	[Doc. No. 2.] 	Plaintiff also filed a
motion for appointment of counsel. 	[Doc. No. 3.] 	For the reasons below, the Court
DENIES the IFP motion, DISMISSES the complaint, and DENIES the motion for
appointment of counsel as moot.
///
///
Case 3:25-cv-03321-CAB-SBC Document 6 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-03321-CAB-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. 	Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this Court must pay a filing fee. See
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). 	But under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may
authorize any suit’s commencement, prosecution, or defense without payment of fees if the
plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing he or
she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. 	“[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege
poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” 	Escobedo v. Applebees, 787
F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 	The Court finds
Plaintiff’s IFP motion is insufficient as she does not state on her application whether she
has any income or expenses. [Doc. No. 2.] Indeed, her IFP application is almost entirely
blank. 	[Id.] 	Accordingly, the Court DENIES her IFP motion. 	Venable v. Meyers, 500
F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (finding that granting or denying leave to proceed IFP in
civil cases is within the district court’s sound discretion).
II. 	Screening of the Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
A plaintiff seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to sua
sponte dismissal if the complaint is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir.
2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”);
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only
permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to
state a claim.”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose filing fees and
court costs are assumed by the public . . . lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing
frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992)
(quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)).
///
///
///
Case 3:25-cv-03321-CAB-SBC Document 6 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-03321-CAB-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The complaint lacks factual allegations and is wholly incoherent and frivolous.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice. 	With Plaintiff’s
complaint dismissed, the Court DENIES her motion for appointment of counsel as moot.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03321-CAB-SBC Document 6 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3