Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Tracy Hines, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint on August 26, 2026, in the Southern District of California against Pete Hegseth. Hines also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a motion to appoint counsel. According to the order, the complaint raised no claims. Instead, Hines attached an EEOC decision concerning his appeal of an employment discrimination complaint. The IFP motion stated only that Hines had "no money," and the court noted that he provided no other information and did not complete the rest of the application. The motion for appointment of counsel was blank.
The court set out the governing standards. A civil filing carries a $402 fee unless the court authorizes the case to proceed without prepayment on an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing the plaintiff cannot pay under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a). A complaint filed by a person proceeding IFP is subject to mandatory screening under section 1915(e)(2)(B), which calls for dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court may also dismiss at any time for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. A plaintiff relying on federal law must plead a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law, and under the well-pleaded complaint rule the federal question must appear on the face of the complaint. Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief, and a demand for relief. Pro se pleadings are construed liberally, but that liberality cannot supply essential elements of a claim that were not initially pled.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the IFP motion. Because Hines said only that he had "no money" and left the rest of the application incomplete, the court could not determine his ability to pay the one-time filing fee. On screening, the court found that Hines did not raise any claims in the complaint. The attached EEOC decision was insufficient to state a claim. The court added that if Hines wants to challenge that decision, he must assert a cause of action cognizable in federal court. It dismissed the complaint for failure to satisfy Rule 8, and its concluding paragraph cites section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
In a footnote, the court explained that the motion to appoint counsel was blank and contained no information, so it could not determine whether appointment was warranted. It denied that motion as well.
The dismissal is without prejudice. Hines may file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies no later than November 30, 2026. To proceed with an amended complaint, he must by the same date either pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed IFP. The order does not decide whether Hines has any viable claim, whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over a properly pleaded claim, or whether he qualifies for IFP status once he submits a complete application. Those questions remain open.
Key Takeaways
- A bare statement that a plaintiff has "no money," without the asset information the IFP application requires, does not let a court assess ability to pay and will lead to denial of the motion.
- Attaching an EEOC decision to a complaint is not a substitute for pleading a claim; a plaintiff who wants to challenge such a decision must assert a cause of action cognizable in federal court.
- Liberal construction of pro se pleadings does not allow a court to supply essential elements of a claim that the plaintiff did not plead.
- A blank motion for appointment of counsel gives the court nothing on which to find that appointment is warranted, so it will be denied.
- Dismissal without prejudice with a fixed deadline gives the plaintiff a chance to cure the defects, but the plaintiff must also pay the fee or file a proper IFP motion by that deadline.
Why It Matters
This unpublished district court order shows the practical steps a pro se litigant must complete to keep a federal case alive. The IFP application must be filled out, the complaint must state claims rather than just enclose an administrative decision, and any request for counsel must be supported with information. The court did not reach the merits of any employment discrimination dispute. It ruled only that nothing in the filing stated a claim.
The order carries no precedential weight and applies established screening and pleading principles to a deficient filing. Its main value is as an illustration of how a court treats an EEOC decision submitted in place of a complaint, and of the November 30, 2026 deadline for a compliant amended complaint together with a fee payment or complete IFP motion.