The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
ASHLEY SIERRA HARRIS, Civ. No. 6:25-cv-00786-AA
Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER
v.
FREDRICK MERZ, et al.
Defendants.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
Self-represented Plaintiff Ashley Sierra Harris seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s IFP
Petition, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. However, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is
DISMISSED with leave to amend and without service on Defendants. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, all parties instituting any civil action in United States District
Court must pay a statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the federal IFP
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), provides indigent litigants an opportunity for
meaningful access to federal courts despite their inability to pay the costs and fees
associated with that access. To authorize a litigant to proceed IFP, a court must make
two determinations. First, a court must determine whether the litigant is unable to
pay the costs of commencing the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Second, it must assess
whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
With regard to the second of these determinations, district courts have the
power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints even before service of the
complaint on the defendants and must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim.
Courts apply the same standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing
a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion to dismiss under the federal
pleading standards, the complaint must include a short and plain statement of the
claim and “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility
standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. The court is not required to accept legal conclusions, unsupported
by alleged facts, as true. Id.
Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings by
attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). That is, the court should
construe pleadings by pro se plaintiffs liberally and afford the plaintiffs the benefit of
any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.
1988). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
complaint and the opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot
be cured by amendment. Id.
DISCUSSION
When assessing an IFP petition, the Court first must determine whether the
plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of indigency. Here, although there are some
confusing statements in Plaintiff’s IFP Petition, the Court is satisfied with Plaintiff’s
showing of indigency, ECF No. 2, and the petition will be GRANTED.
The Complaint in this case is disjointed and difficult to understand.
Defendants in this case are the Chancellor of Germany, the President of Russia, and
the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. It is not clear, however, what these
individuals are alleged to have done.
In the section of the Complaint where Plaintiff is asked to identify the federal
basis for jurisdiction, Plaintiff has written “MARHSAL PLAN!” which the Court
interprets to mean the European Recovery Program, known as the Marshall Plan,
which provided foreign aid to Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War, but
it is not clear how Plaintiff believes she has a private right of action under the
Marshall Plan. Plaintiff has also written “TREATY OF VERSAILLES IS WRONG,
SHE HAS RIGHTS.” The Court is at a loss to interpret this statement.
In the sections of the Complaint in which Plaintiff is asked to state the amount
in controversy, the basis for her claim, and the relief she seeks, Plaintiff has written:
You can’t put a price on the forced displacement of HORST FRÖBER!
I am in therapy. I have PTSD. I have anxiety. I am [federally] qualified
as disabled b/c of Saif Jnma [sic]. Khalifa Mohammed Alfuqaei UAE
resident who knew in 2019 what happen[ed] didn’t CARE!
1996-2025
1937-PRESENT
FOR STEALING HIS BIO VIKING BLOODED MOM FROM HER SON!
Compl. 4.
Plaintiff has included what appears to be a photocopy of a postcard sent from
the Soviet Union to an addressee in Germany, sometime in the 1930s. The postcard
is written in a combination of Russian, French, and German and the Court is unable
to interpret it.
On her civil cover sheet, Plaintiff has written “Lost Great Granda Displaced
Person HORST FÖBER,” with the note that her claim is “civi[l], other, immigration,
intellectual property, TORTS, FORFEITURE.” Compl. 7.
Even considered together, these allegations fail to state any claim, nor do they
appear to involve the named Defendants. As a result, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be
dismissed. Because Plaintiff is self-represented, the Court will dismiss with leave to
amend and allow Plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. In
drafting the amended complaint, Plaintiff should bear in mind that the Court does
not know anything about her situation, other than what she includes in the amended
complaint. Plaintiff should clearly and briefly explain what has happened, how she
has been injured, and why she believes the named defendants should be held liable
for the injury. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint within
the allotted time will result in the entry of a judgment of dismissal without further
notice.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel. ECF
No. 3. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. United States v.
30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986). However, pursuant to § 1915,
this Court has discretion to request volunteer counsel for indigent parties in
exceptional circumstances. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir.
1990). Here, because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, the Motion for Appointment
of Counsel is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s IFP petition, ECF No. 2, is
GRANTED but the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend but
without service on Defendants. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to file
an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to submit an amended
complaint within the allotted time will result in the entry of a judgment of dismissal
without further notice. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, ECF
No. 3, is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this 1 5th day of May 2025.
/s/Ann Aiken
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge