The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13 ARTHUR LOPEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-3652-BJC-AHG
14 Plaintiff, ORDER:
15 v.
(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO
16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., PROCEED IN FORMA PAPUERIS;
AND
17 Defendants.
18 (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
19
20
On June 22, 2026, Plaintiff Arthur Lopez, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint, ECF
21
No. 1, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, a motion to appoint
22
counsel, ECF No. 3, a motion for leave to electronically file, ECF No. 4, and a “request to
23
file supplement to complaint.” ECF No. 5. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS
24
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice, and
25
DISMISSES the other motions as moot.
26
I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP
27
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
28
1 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
2 $402.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Civ.L.R. 4.5. A court may authorize the
3 commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit,
4 including a statement of all their assets, showing that they are unable to pay the fees. See
5 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
6 Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in district court without paying the
7 filing fee. ECF No. 2. The application reflects that Plaintiff’s source of income is social
8 security benefits in the amount of $1,365 per month. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further reports
9 maintaining $1 in a savings account. Id. at 3. Plaintiff’s only reported assets are two
10 vehicles: (1) a 2008 Lexus with a $15,000 lien, and (2) a 1999 Buick valued at $5,000. Id.
11 at 3. His total monthly expenses are listed as $1 ,365. Id. at 5. In light of Plaintiff’s limited
12 income and modest financial resources, the Court finds that he lacks sufficient funds to pay
13 the filing fee while still “afford[ing] the necessities of life. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787
14 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
15 pauperis is GRANTED.
16 SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
17 The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
18 and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief
19 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.”
20 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001)
21 (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoner”); Lopez v.
22 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
23 “not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint
24 that fails to state a claim”).
25 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
26 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). To proceed with an action in federal court, a plaintiff
27 must establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. There are two types of subject
28 matter jurisdiction – federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Tesla Motors,
1 Inc. v. Balan, 134 F.4th 558, 560 (9th Cir. 2025).
2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to “contain: (1) a short and
3 plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement
4 of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.”
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally. See Bernhardt
6 v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
7 520 (1972) (per curiam) (noting that courts hold pro se complaints to “less stringent
8 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”). However, “a liberal interpretation
9 of a [pro se] complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially
10 pled.” See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
11 To the extent Plaintiff is asserting claims under federal law, he must plead a
12 colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States to invoke
13 federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,
14 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is
15 governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that federal jurisdiction
16 exists only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. City
17 of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2020).
18 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not clearly identify the claims he seeks to assert, and the
19 allegations are difficult for the Court to discern. See ECF No. 1 at 2–35. The Complaint
20 begins with a statement that is difficult to follow:
21 In this case Co-Defendant United States has been complicit with co-
defendants targeting Plaintiff to inflict harm emotional distress, wrongful acts
22
and omissions. In one instance discovered approximately May 18, 2025 that
23 a request for extension of time, to file a petitioner for writ of certiorari related
to Florida Supreme Court civil case # 2025-0024. . . was not registered
24
docketed, locatable and as such the Supreme Court of the United States would
25 not have jurisdiction and Plaintiff has lost his claims for relief seeking
$20,000,000.
26
27 Id. at 2.
28
l The allegations that follow are similarly difficult to understand and do not clearly
2 ||identify a cognizable federal claim. For example, on page 9, Plaintiff continues □□□□□□ fact,
3 center of the trial . . . [was] the crash landing of a commercial airlines with 140
4 || passengers on board that originated from prostitution haven ...” /d. at 9. Further, on page
5 || 15, Plaintiff alleges that, “[iJn December of 2015 Christopher Leo as assigned County of
6 Orange Public Defender in no uncertain terms conveyed to plaintiff that everyone at the
7 || court ‘hated plaintiff.’” /d. at 15. Plaintiff continues to allege that “[t]he defendants have
8 colluded to persecute plaintiff for not participating in their corruption schemes involving
9 || even the Catholic Church.” Jd. at 20.
10 As currently pled, the Complaint fails to assert a colorable claim “arising under” the
11 || Constitution or laws of the United States to invoke federal question jurisdiction pursuant
12 |/to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. at 513. For the foregoing
13 || reasons, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. ECF No. 2.
14 || The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ECF No. 1. Because there is
15 an operable complaint, the motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 3, motion for leave to
16 |/electronically file documents, ECF No. 4, and “request to file supplement to complaint,
17 || ECF No. 5, are DENIED as moot.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19 || Dated: August 19, 2026
20
21
22
23
24 6 Fan. Cb a fu
25 ATOR AA
26 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks
54 United States District Judge
28
26-cv-3652-BJC-AHG