Garcia Diaz v. RJD Donovan Correctional Facility et al

1
3:25-cv-3765-CAB-JLB
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
VALENTIN GARCIA DIAZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
RJD DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3765-CAB-JLB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IFP & DISMISSING
COMPLAINT
[Doc. No. 2]
On December 22, 2025, Plaintiff Valentin Garcia Diaz filed a complaint against
Defendants RJD Donovan Correctional Facility and Does 1–3 pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 	[Doc. No. 1 at 3.] 	Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28
U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead, he filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] For the reasons below,
the Court DENIES the IFP motion and DISMISSES the complaint.
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
Case 3:25-cv-03765-CAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:25-cv-3765-CAB-JLB
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
poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” 	Escobedo v. Applebees, 787
F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Granting or denying
leave to proceed IFP in civil cases is within the district court’s sound discretion. Venable
v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted).
The Court finds Plaintiff’s IFP application is insufficient. 	He does not list any
money he has in cash or in any bank account, nor does he list any expenses. 	The form
template he uses is missing the second page which requests additional information from
the applicant. Accordingly, the Court DENIES his IFP motion.
Even if his IFP motion was sufficient, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s case as it is
frivolous and he fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). From what can be
discerned, Plaintiff alleges that prison staff did not talk to him and mocked him after he
told them he was “telepathic.” 	[Doc. No. 1 at 4.] 	He also alleges that someone used
excessive force in grabbing him and carrying him back to his cell with no other details.
[Id.] The Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations to be frivolous and DISMISSES the complaint.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03765-CAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2