Hutchinson v. Nicholson et al

1
25-cv-3371-RSH-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
CESSALY D. HUTCHINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GALE PINES NICHOLSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-3371-RSH-JLB
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AND (2) DISMISSING
COMPLAINT
[ECF No. 5]
On December 1, 2025, plaintiff Cessaly D. Hutchinson, proceeding pro se, filed this
lawsuit along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1 (“Compl.”);
2. Plaintiff sues three individuals: Gale Pines Nicholson, Phyllis Pines Garnett, and
Timothy Nicholson.
On December 3, 2025, the Court issued an order (1) denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion
as incomplete, and (2) dismissing the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for
failure to state a claim. ECF No. 3. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to either pay the filing
fee or file a new IFP motion, and to file an amended complaint. Id. at 5.
On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint along with a new
IFP motion. ECF Nos. 4, 5.
//
Case 3:25-cv-03371-RSH-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
25-cv-3371-RSH-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
I. 	MOTION TO PROCEED IFP
All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee
only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See
Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (“All persons,
not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.”); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th
Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the
prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets,
showing an inability to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in
support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the
court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226,
1234 (9th Cir. 2015).
The Court denied Plaintiff’s previous IFP application as incomplete. ECF No. 3 at
5. Plaintiff’s second IFP application is also incomplete. The application does not indicate
whether Plaintiff is employed, identify her employee, or state her gross or take-home pay
or wages. See ECF No. 5 at 1. Additionally, within the “other income” section, Plaintiff
provides no response to three of the six questions, declining to indicate either “Yes” or
“No” for each category of income. See id. The Court denies the application.
//
//
//
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); United States Courts, District Court
Miscellaneous 	Fee 	Schedule 	§ 	14 	(effective 	Dec. 	1, 	2023),
https://www.uscourts.gov/servicesforms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule.
The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed
IFP. Id.
Case 3:25-cv-03371-RSH-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
25-cv-3371-RSH-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
II. 	SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
A. 	Legal Standard
A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a) is subject to sua sponte review and dismissal should the Court determine, inter
alia, that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.
2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed
by prisoners.”). “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); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th
Cir. 2012) (noting that § 1915A screening “incorporates the familiar standard applied in
the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”).
Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “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) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
In addition to reviewing IFP complaints under § 1915, “[f]ederal courts have an
independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and
therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook
or elect not to press.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011).
Courts address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction first, as “[t]he requirement that
jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter ‘spring[s] from the nature and limits of the
judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without exception.’” Steel Co. v.
Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998) (alteration in original) (quoting
Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)). “If the court determines
at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
//
Case 3:25-cv-03371-RSH-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
25-cv-3371-RSH-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
B. 	Discussion
The Court’s order of December 3, 2025, discussed the allegations in the Complaint
and concluded that—although the Complaint states that it seeks damages for assault and
battery, emotional distress, libel and slander, false imprisonment, and other financial
damages—the Complaint failed to state any claim. ECF No. 3 at 4. The Court also noted
that the Complaint failed to establish federal jurisdiction by pleading a federal claim, or by
establishing complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and each of the defendants.
Id. The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to “file an amended complaint addressing the
deficiencies 	identified 	herein 	and 	establishing 	a 	basis 	for 	federal 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction.” Id. at 5.
The Amended Complaint does not overcome the pleading deficiencies previously
identified. The allegations in the Amended Complaint are substantially similar to those in
the Complaint. The Amended Complaint contains a reference to a federal statute, 18 U.S.C.
§ 241, but this statute is a criminal provision for conspiracy against civil rights, and does
not confer a private right of action. Additionally, the Amended Complaint does not plead
a civil cause of action for violation of civil rights. No defendant is alleged to have acted
under color of law. The Court concludes that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim
or properly invoke federal jurisdiction. The Court concludes that further amendment would
be futile and declines to grant leave to amend.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP
[ECF No. 5] and DISMISSES the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) without
leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03371-RSH-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4