Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Mary Swenson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court screens her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finds that it fails to state a plausible claim against Blend Realty or John Kuehni, and dismisses it with leave to amend. The court denies several related requests as moot and permits an amended complaint by August 6, 2025.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis based on her financial affidavit.
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief against Blend Realty.
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief against John Kuehni.
- Whether the court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a challenge to prior state-law eviction or unlawful-detainer proceedings.
Holdings
- Plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis because her financial disclosures showed that she could not pay the filing fee while affording the necessities of life.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible claim against Blend Realty because the allegation concerning the San Diego property and liens did not identify the nature of the dispute or a specific legal claim.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible claim against John Kuehni because the allegation that he filed for a default eviction and obtained sanctions, fees, and fines did not identify the nature of the dispute or any specific claim.
- The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.
Key quotations
“Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP requests on a case-by-case basis.” (§ I.A)
“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.” (§ I.B)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that Blend Realty opposed or was connected to property in San Diego with numerous liens and that John Kuehni filed for a default eviction and obtained sanctions, fees, and fines. She requested eviction of persons allegedly connected to Blend Realty and removal or remission of fees, sanctions, and fines. Plaintiff's financial disclosures showed monthly income of approximately $1,773, monthly expenses of approximately $2,555, and negative balances in her checking and savings accounts.
Procedural history
On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint concerning alleged property liens, trust property, an eviction, and fees and sanctions. The court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepaying filing fees after finding that her expenses exceeded her income and that she had negative bank-account balances. On mandatory screening, the court found that the complaint did not state a plausible claim against either defendant and dismissed it with leave to amend. Related requests for corrections, electronic filing permission, appointment of counsel, and a motion concerning property and a temporary restraining order were denied as moot.