Sandoval v. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW), et al.

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
YADIRA SANDOVAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND WELFARE, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00463-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff Yadira Sandoval’s In Forma Pauperis
Application (Dkt. 1), Complaint (Dkt. 2), and several motions (Dkt. 3-5). For the
reasons explained below, the Court will grant the In Forma Pauperis Application,
dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend, and deny the motions as moot.
1. In Forma Pauperis Application
Plaintiffs who wish to pursue civil lawsuits in this District must pay a filing
fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). If a plaintiff wishes to avoid that fee, he must submit
an affidavit showing he is unable to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in
support of an in forma pauperis application is sufficient where it alleges that the
affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo
Case 1:25-cv-00463-BLW Document 8 Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 2
v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status
must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). The granting or denial of leave to proceed in
forma pauperis in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court.
O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Court has reviewed the affidavit provided by Sandoval. Dkt. 1.
Although she failed to answer certain questions, the affidavit states sufficient facts
to support her poverty. Sandoval is unemployed and depends on others for food
and shelter. Id. at 3. She reports that she has no income or assets. Id. at 2. Due to
her reliance on charity, she apparently also has no expenses. Id. at 3. These factors,
if true, indicate that Sandoval cannot pay the filing fee while still affording basic
living expenses.
2. Review of Complaint
Once the Court grants an in forma pauperis application, it may conduct an
initial review of the complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court engages in this
review, a complaint must be dismissed if it (1) states a frivolous or malicious
claim, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
Case 1:25-cv-00463-BLW Document 8 Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 6

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 3
1915(e)(2)(B). The second basis for dismissal is most relevant in this case.
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim for
relief under Rule 8 and may be dismissed if the factual assertions in the complaint,
taken as true, are insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[D]etailed factual allegations” are not
required, but a plaintiff must offer “more than . . . unadorned, the-defendant-
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
During this initial review, courts construe pro se pleadings liberally, giving
pro se plaintiffs the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th
Cir. 2010). But this does not eliminate the standard set forth in Rule 8(a)(2). Pro se
plaintiffs must still articulate plausible claims and allege facts sufficient to support
each claim. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). Judges are neither
“mind readers” nor “advocates” for pro se litigants. Camel v. Cannon, No. 6:06-
3030–GRA–WMC, 2007 WL 465583, at *3 (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2007). Nor will courts
“assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of
factual allegations.” Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case 1:25-cv-00463-BLW Document 8 Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 6

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 4
(internal citation omitted).
Sandoval has sued the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW),
Canyon County, an IDHW case worker, the former Canyon County prosecutor,
and several law enforcement agents for civil rights violations. She claims that the
defendants “engaged in a coordinated pattern of misconduct . . . that resulted in the
unlawful removal of Plaintiff’s children, racial discrimination, coercion,
intimidation, human trafficking exploitation, and violations of constitutional
rights.” Dkt. 2 at 2. But the factual allegations in her Complaint fall far short of
stating any civil rights claims. In some instances, she makes bald assertions of
harm without any substantiating facts—alleging, for instance, “a pattern of
unlawful and excessive arrests by local law enforcement.” Id. at 4. At other times,
she makes allegations that have no clear connection to her claim—for example,
that Idaho Community Outreach Behavioral Services “was placed under federal
investigation for Medicaid fraud.” Id. at 5. The attachment that Sandoval describes
as a “Declaration of Facts” is a jumbled collection of documents that does nothing
to clarify these matters.
Due to the absence of factual allegations, Sandoval has failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. The Court will dismiss the Complaint but give
Sandoval leave to amend it to cure these deficiencies. The Court will also deny as
Case 1:25-cv-00463-BLW Document 8 Filed 10/20/25 Page 4 of 6

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 5
moot the Motion for Reservation of Legislative Relief (Dkt. 3), Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 4), and Motion for Early Discovery and Speedy
Trial (Dkt. 5). If Sandoval submits an amended complaint, she should take care to
provide a coherent, specific factual account of the events underlying her claims.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is
GRANTED.
2. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and is DISMISSED. Plaintiff has 30 days within which to file an
amended complaint as described above. If Plaintiff does so, Plaintiff must
file (along with the amended complaint) a Motion to Review the
Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff does not amend within 30 days, this
case may be dismissed without further notice. Alternatively, Plaintiff
may file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal if Plaintiff no longer intends to
pursue this case.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reservation of Legislative Relief (Dkt. 3) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
Case 1:25-cv-00463-BLW Document 8 Filed 10/20/25 Page 5 of 6

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 6
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 4) DENIED AS
MOOT.
5. Plaintiff’s Motion for Early Discovery and Speedy Trial (Dkt. 5)
DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED: October 20, 2025
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00463-BLW Document 8 Filed 10/20/25 Page 6 of 6