Case Information
*1 Case 2:25-cv-07898-MEMF-SK Document 13 Filed 09/22/25 Page 1 of 1 Page ID
#:8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Amber Doe Case No. 2:25-cv-07898-MEMF (SK) Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON REQUEST TO PROCEED v. IN FORMA PAUPERIS Sequoia Capital Ops., LLC, et al. Defendant(s)/Respondent(s) CIVIL RIGHTS, HABEAS, AND SOCIAL SECURITY
The Court has reviewed the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and the documents submitted with it. On the question of indigency, the Court finds that Plaintiff/Petitioner: is not able to prepay the full filing fee. is able to prepay the full filing fee. did not submit a request. ■ has not submitted enough information for the Court to determine if Plaintiff/Petitioner is able to prepay the full filing fee. IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED for the following reason(s): Inadequate showing of indigency. Frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which ■ Failure to authorize disbursements relief may be granted. (cid:54)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:17) from prison trust account to pay the filing fees. Seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such Failure to provide certified copy of relief. (cid:54)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:17) trust fund statement for the last six (6) months. Leave to amend would be futile. ■ District Court lacks jurisdiction. This denial may constitute a strike under the “Three Strikes” The Clerk sent a warning letter to provision governing the filing of prisoner suits. See O’Neal v. Plaintiff/Petitioner advising that failure to submit Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008) (cid:30)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:27) (cid:56)(cid:17)(cid:54)(cid:17)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:134)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:11)(cid:74)(cid:12)(cid:17)
(cid:36)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:72)(cid:91)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:17) application to proceed IFP or pay the filing fee (cid:55)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:74)(cid:68)(cid:89)(cid:72) would result in dismissal of this case. More than
(cid:51)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:18)(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:92)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:18)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3) 30 days have passed, and the deficiency has not (cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:72)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:69)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:3) been corrected. (cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:17) ■ (cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87) (cid:29)(cid:3) This action is substantively identical to three cases previously dismissed with prejudice. (See Doe v. Goguen, et al., No. 2:23-cv-2280; Doe v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, et al, No. 2:23-cv-4896; Doe v. Sequoia Capital, et al., No. 2:23-cv-6439). This duplicative action is thus barred by res judicata. See Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 962 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Beard v. Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 150, 908 F.2d 474, 477 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal of "complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims"). Suits barred by res judicata are by definition frivolous. See Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). As a result, leave to amend the complaint would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Cobb v. Juarez, 584 F. App’x 418, 419 (9th Cir. 2014). The parties are not entitled to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding the Request. See Minetti v. Port of Seattle , 152 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). The Report and Recommendation will be sent to the District Judge for consideration. Dated: _____________________ September 22, 2025 By:________________________________
(cid:43)(cid:50)(cid:49)(cid:17) STEVE KIM (cid:56)(cid:49)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:54)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:44)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:53)(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:45)(cid:56)(cid:39)(cid:42)(cid:40) CV-73 (cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:28) /25 Report and Recommendation on Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Civil Rights, Habeas, and Social Security)