Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kevin Butala alleged that Jennifer Alonso impersonated a psychiatrist at Sharp Memorial Hospital and threatened an involuntary psychiatric hold under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. His complaint referred generally to impersonation, identity theft, insurance fraud, and fraud, but identified no federal statute or constitutional right that Alonso supposedly violated.
Butala sought leave to proceed without paying the filing fee and requested appointed counsel. His financial affidavit showed no income and expenses exceeding his resources. Because he sought in forma pauperis status, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it failed to state a claim.
The Court’s Holding
Chief Judge Cynthia Bashant granted pauper status but dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. A federal-question case must arise under federal law, while diversity jurisdiction requires more than $75,000 in controversy and complete diversity of citizenship. Even liberally construed as California common-law fraud, Butala’s allegations supplied neither basis. Nature-of-suit codes on a civil cover sheet, including a False Claims Act code, did not substitute for pleading a federal cause of action.
The court allowed Butala until November 16, 2026 to file an amended complaint stating a federal claim. It also denied appointment of counsel without prejudice. Civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to counsel unless physical liberty is at stake, and appointment under section 1915 requires exceptional circumstances assessed through likely success and ability to articulate the case. At this early stage, with no viable complaint, the court could not find those circumstances. The dismissal was not a merits judgment on any properly pleaded amended claim.
Key Takeaways
- Pauper status removes the filing-fee barrier but triggers mandatory judicial screening.
- State-law fraud allegations do not create federal-question jurisdiction.
- A civil cover sheet cannot cure a complaint that omits a federal statutory or constitutional claim.
- Dismissal without prejudice gave the plaintiff a defined opportunity to amend, while counsel was denied without prejudice.
Why It Matters
The order is a useful reminder that jurisdiction and merits pleading are separate from financial eligibility. Pro se litigants receive liberal construction, but still must identify facts and law bringing the dispute within federal power. Counsel reviewing a potential amendment should identify the actor, the source of federal rights, any state-action requirement, and the jurisdictional facts rather than relying on labels such as fraud or identity theft.
The court applied the same plausibility framework used for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion while construing the pro se allegations liberally. It did not decide whether Alonso was actually a psychiatrist, whether a section 5150 hold occurred, or whether state-law fraud could eventually be proved. The defect was that the pleading did not connect those allegations to a federal claim and did not allege facts establishing diversity jurisdiction. The counsel ruling was similarly preliminary. Indigence, homelessness, or disability may complicate litigation, but the Ninth Circuit test examines both likely success and the person’s ability to articulate the issues. Because the complaint had just been dismissed with leave to amend, the court could not assess success on a viable claim. Both dismissals being without prejudice preserved Butala’s ability to file a compliant amendment and renew requests if the case developed differently. Any amendment would still need factual allegations, not merely legal labels, sufficient to show entitlement to relief. The order therefore supplied guidance without prejudging a new pleading.