Winslow v. Health Care Market Place.Gov

1
3:24-cv-1919-TWR-MMP
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
KENNETH TYRELL WINSLOW,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HEALTH CARE MARKET
PLACE.GOV,
Defendant.
Case No.: 26-CV-5685 TWR (GC)
ORDER (1) GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), AND (3) DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE
ELECTRONICALLY
(ECF Nos. 1–3)
Plaintiff Kenneth Tyrell Winslow, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint for a
Civil Case (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) against a putative government website, “Health Care
Market Place.gov,” for enrolling him in health care coverage without his authorization,
along with an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Long Form) (“IFP Motion,” ECF No. 2) and a Motion to File Electronically (“ECF
Motion,” ECF No. 3). 	For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
IFP Motion, DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-05685-TWR-GC Document 4 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 6

2
3:24-cv-1919-TWR-MMP
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
state 	a 	claim 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 	and 	DENIES 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s ECF Motion.
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay filing and
administration fees totaling $405.1 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 	A court may, however, in its
discretion, allow a plaintiff to proceed without paying these fees if the plaintiff seeks leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by submitting an affidavit demonstrating the fees
impose financial hardship. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d
1226, 1234 (2015). Although the statute does not specify the qualifications for proceeding
IFP, the plaintiff’s affidavit must allege poverty with some particularity. 	Escobedo, 787
F.3d at 1234. Granting a plaintiff leave to proceed IFP may be proper, for example, when
the affidavit demonstrates that paying court costs will result in a plaintiff’s inability to
afford the “necessities of life.” Id. The affidavit, however, need not demonstrate that the
plaintiff is destitute. Id.
Here, Plaintiff’s affidavit indicates that he is unemployed, receives no income
beyond EBT benefits, (see IFP Mot. at 1–2), and has no assets. (See id. at 3.) The Court
therefore concludes that Plaintiff has met his burden of demonstrating that paying the $405
filing fee will result in his inability to afford the necessities of life and GRANTS Plaintiff’s
IFP Motion (ECF No. 2).
SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
Having granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, the Court must screen Plaintiff’s Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	Under this statute, courts shall review and sua
sponte dismiss any complaint or part thereof that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
1 	In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of
$55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule,
§ 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave
to proceed IFP. Id.
Case 3:26-cv-05685-TWR-GC Document 4 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 6

3
3:24-cv-1919-TWR-MMP
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
claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126‒27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). “The purpose of
[screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the
expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).
Pursuant to Rule 8, a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that a pleader is entitled to relief.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 	“The standard for
determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
standard for failure to state a claim.” 	Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012). Rule 12(b)(6) requires that complaints “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 	Detailed factual allegations are not
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. And the “mere possibility
of misconduct” or “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” will
not suffice. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
Courts have a duty to construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally. 	See Karim-
Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). 	In giving liberal
interpretation to a pro se complaint, however, a court may not “supply essential elements
of claims that were not initially pled.” 	Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673
F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The district court should grant leave to amend if it appears
“at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect,” unless the court determines that
“the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez, 203 F.3d
at 1130–31 (citing Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995); Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1990)).
Plaintiff’s Complaint, which is handwritten on a form provides, in its entirety:
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-05685-TWR-GC Document 4 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 6

4
3:24-cv-1919-TWR-MMP
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
A. 	FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Unauthorized Documentation (identify
the law or right you claim was violated), by fraudulent documentation (name
the defendant(s) involved.
Supporting 	Facts: 	(explain 	what 	happened): 	Without 	financial
records/statements enrollment for coverage was made, which is required for
policy coverage enrollment.
(See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 5.) Although Plaintiff’s Complaint is “short and plain,” see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), “in the Ninth Circuit, ‘[f]ailure to comply with [Rule 8(a)(2)’s fair-
notice requirement] constitutes an independent basis for dismissal of a complaint even if
the claims in a complaint are not found to be wholly without merit.” George v. Grossmont
Cuyamaca Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd. of Governors, No. 22-CV-0424-BAS-DDL, 2022 WL
17330467, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022) (alterations in original) (quoting Woulldar v.
Contreras, No. CV 17-08298-R-JDE, 2017 WL 6343549, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2017),
and collecting cases). “[T]o survive Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must provide fair notice of
what plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests in order to enable the
[defendant] to answer and prepare for trial, and to identify the nature of the case.” 	Id. at
*15 (second alteration in original and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Middleton
v. United States, No. 10-CV-6057 (HFB)(ETB), 2012 WL 394559, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7,
2012)) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2022)).
As 	an 	initial 	matter, 	the 	Court 	takes 	judicial 	notice 	of 	the 	fact 	that
healthcaremarketplace.gov is not a valid Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”). Even if it
were, a government website is not a proper defendant; Plaintiff would instead need to sue
the government agency that operates the relevant website (presumably, healthcare.gov).
Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not provide fair notice of his claim or the facts
underlying it, as required by Rule 8(a). Because the Complaint fails to comply with Rule
8(a), the Court necessarily sua sponte DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-05685-TWR-GC Document 4 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 6

5
3:24-cv-1919-TWR-MMP
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
MOTION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY
As for Plaintiff’s ECF Motion, generally, “[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order,
or other procedure, the Court has designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing
System.” S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 5.4(a). With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless
otherwise authorized by the court, all documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office
. . . must be in legible, paper form.” Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and
Procedures Manual (“CM/ECF Manual”), § 2(b) (Jan. 16, 2026). “A pro se party seeking
leave to electronically file documents must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do
so properly by stating their equipment and software capabilities in addition to agreeing to
follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures
Manual.” 	Id. 	The CM/ECF Manual adds that “[c]urrent technical specifications for
CM/ECF can be found at the court’s official web site, www.casd.uscourts.gov,” id. § 1(i).
The Court’s website notes that, to participate in CM/ECF, a filer needs a “[c]omputer
running on Windows or Macintosh;” “[s]oftware to convert documents from a word
processor format to portable document format (PDF)[;]” “Internet access supporting a
transfer rate of 56kb or higher;” a compatible web browser, such as “Firefox 15, Internet
Explorer 9, and Safari 5.1/6 or later version;” a “[s]canner to image non-computerized
documents 400 pixels per inch (ppi);” and a “PACER account.” U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S.D.
of Cal., CM/ECF Information, General Info, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx
#undefined1 (last visited Oct. 6, 2026).
Plaintiff’s 	ECF 	Motion 	fails 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	he 	has 	the 	means 	to 	file
electronically because he fails to indicate whether he has the requisite equipment and
software. 	Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s ECF
Motion. Should Plaintiff wish to file a renewed motion, he may use the form Motion for
Leave to Electronically File Documents that is available on the Court’s website at
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/attorney/prose/SDCal%20Form%20Motion%
20to%20E-file.pdf.
Case 3:26-cv-05685-TWR-GC Document 4 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 6

6
3:24-cv-1919-TWR-MMP
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
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (ECF No. 2),
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) for failure to
state 	a 	claim 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 	and 	DENIES 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s ECF Motion (ECF No. 3). 	Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended
complaint curing the deficiencies identified above within sixty (60) days of the date of this
Order. Any amended complaint must be complete by itself without reference to the original
pleading. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in the amended complaint
will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard
Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes
the original.”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting
that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading
may be “considered waived if not repled”). If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint
within sixty (60) days, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based
both on his failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and his failure to prosecute in compliance with a Court Order requiring
amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does
not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the
dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2026
___________________________
Honorable Todd W. Robinson
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-05685-TWR-GC Document 4 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 6