Amber Doe v. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC
2:25-cv-07898
| C.D. Cal. | Sep 22, 2025Background
- Amber Doe filed a civil action in the Central District of California seeking relief under civil rights, habeas, and social security claims.
- Doe moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the court reviewed indigency documentation and the filing fee issue.
- The magistrate judge recommended denying the IFP request for inadequate showing of indigency and potential dismissal.
- The opinion notes the action is substantively identical to three previously dismissed Doe actions, raising res judicata concerns.
- The court indicated that leave to amend would be futile and discussed potential three-strikes implications.
- Dated September 22, 2025, the Report and Recommendation was authored and forwarded to the District Judge for consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IFP request can be granted on indigency grounds | Doe argues she cannot prepay the filing fee. | Defendants contend the showing of indigency is inadequate or insufficient. | Denied; inadequate showing of indigency. |
| Whether the action is barred by res judicata | Doe contends the current action raises new claims. | Defendants assert the action is duplicative of prior dismissed cases and barred. | Barred by res judicata; duplicative of earlier actions. |
| Whether leave to amend is futile | Doe would amend to state a cognizable claim. | Defendants argue amendments would be futile given res judicata and frivolity. | Futile; leave to amend denied. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed or whether dismissal is warranted | Doe seeks a determination on IFP and merits. | Defendants argue lack of jurisdiction or dismissal due to duplicative, frivolous claims. | Court recommends denial and dismissal consistent with previous dismissals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (res judicata bar evidence in dismissal)
- Beard v. Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 150, 908 F.2d 474 (9th Cir. 1990) (precedent for res judicata considerations)
- Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal of duplicative claims)
- Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998) (suits barred by res judicata are frivolous)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend fraught when futile or duplicative)