EUN JUNG LIM
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff
and
IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
MICHAEL HAMEL, in his official and
individual capacity;
MICHAEL MCNALL, in his official and
individual capacity;
RENE NUTTER in her official and
individual capacity;
SEAN PAUL CRAWFORD in his official
and individual capacity;
ERIC STEELE in his official and individual
capacity;
MICHELE HINIG in her official and
individual capacity;
JAMES MOORE in his official and
individual capacity;
WILLIAM RUSSELL in his official and
individual capacity;
JERRY POOLE in his official and individual
capacity;
MISTY DANIELS in her official and
individual capacity;
TODD SPITZER in his official and
individual capacity;
DUSTIN RICE in his official and individual
capacity;
TAYLOR KRONE in her official and
individual capacity;
Case No.: _
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES THEREOF;
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
COMPLAINT
ALLISON TAYLOR TARGOFF in her
official and individual capacity; and
GAGANJOT BATTH, in her official and
individual capacity.
Defendants
NOTICE OF MOTION
NOTICE TO ALL THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; AND
SPECIAL TO THIS HONORABLE COURT:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on [ENTER DATE] or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, in this Court, Plaintiff, EUN JUNG LIM (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) will, and
hereby does, move for an Order to reconsider this Court’s decision made on January 31, 2022,
which decision denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.
This Motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot afford the costs of this suit
because she is unemployed and is living on state benefits.
This Motion is based on this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, the pleadings herein, the Declaration in support of the Motion, and on such further
oral and/or documentary evidence as may be presented or judicially noticed at the hearing of this
Motion.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EUN JUNG LIM
Pro se
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
COMPLAINT
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 4
INTRODUCTION 6
LEGAL ARGUMENTS 6
I. THE PLAINTIFF HAS MADE AN ADEQUATE SHOWING OF INDIGENCY. 6
II. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IS MERITORIOUS. 7
III. A DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST WOULD AMOUNT TO AN ABUSE OF
THIS COURT’S DISCRETION. 8
CONCLUSION 9
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 10
ORDER 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
COMPLAINT
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
.” United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 473 F.3d 915, 955 (9th Cir.2006). 8
Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339. 6
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, _ U.S. , , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). 7
City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.2001) 8
Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984) 7
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 8
Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) 7
Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); 7
Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) 7
Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). 7
Motorola V. J.B. Rodgers Mechanical Contractors, 215 F.R.D. at 585–86. 8
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) 7
Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 809 (9th Cir.1963) 8
STATUTES
18 U.S.C. § 1621 10
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Webster’s New International Dictionary 1919 (2d ed. 1942) 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
COMPLAINT
EUN JUNG LIM
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff
and
IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
MICHAEL HAMEL, in his official and
individual capacity;
MICHAEL MCNALL, in his official and
individual capacity;
RENE NUTTER in her official and
individual capacity;
SEAN PAUL CRAWFORD in his official
and individual capacity;
ERIC STEELE in his official and individual
capacity;
MICHELE HINIG in her official and
individual capacity;
JAMES MOORE in his official and
individual capacity;
WILLIAM RUSSELL in his official and
individual capacity;
JERRY POOLE in his official and individual
capacity;
MISTY DANIELS in her official and
individual capacity;
TODD SPITZER in his official and
individual capacity;
DUSTIN RICE in his official and individual
capacity;
TAYLOR KRONE in her official and
Case No.: _
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES THEREOF;
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
COMPLAINT
individual capacity;
ALLISON TAYLOR TARGOFF in her
official and individual capacity; and
GAGANJOT BATTH, in her official and
individual capacity.
Defendants
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
COMES NOW Plaintiff EUN JUNG LIM, seeking a reconsideration of this Court’s
Order made on January 31, 2022, which Order denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed a request that he proceeds in forma pauperis in his case against the
Defendants before this Honorable Court. In the request, the Plaintiff stated that he is unable to
pay the Court’s fees and costs. Notably, Plaintiff is unemployed, and has been unemployed.
Besides, he has been living on State benefits (Calfresh) since February 1, 2022. Plaintiff
therefore requests this Court reconsiders its Order that denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
I. THE PLAINTIFF HAS MADE AN ADEQUATE SHOWING OF
INDIGENCY.
Poverty, in its primary sense, is a human condition, to be “[w]anting in material riches or
goods; lacking in the comforts of life; needy,” Webster’s New International Dictionary 1919 (2d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
COMPLAINT
ed. 1942). An affidavit “is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay [Court’s fees and costs] . . . and still be able to provide' himself and dependentswith the
necessities of life.'” Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339.
In the instant case, Plaintiff avers that he is unable to meet this Honorable Court’s fees
and costs. Attached to this Motion, Plaintiff has declared under oath that she is unemployed and
is living on Calfresh, thus receiving food stamps. In that regard, a denial of Plaintiff’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis would occasion undue harm on Plaintiff since he would not be in a
position to seek legal redress and defend his rights that are guaranteed by the US Constitution.
II. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IS MERITORIOUS.
A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir.
1984). Accordingly, the Courts dismiss complaints as frivolous where it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, _ U.S. , , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim,
the court accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp.
Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d
1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
In the instant action, Plaintiff avers that he has a meritorious action against the
Defendants. It is worth noting that Plaintiff duly noted this Court’s concerns over the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
COMPLAINT
deficiencies of Plaintiff’s originally filed Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff intends to file an
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff understands that his amended complaint will supersede his
original complaint, see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967), and his original complaint
will no longer serve any function in this case. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims that
his constitutionally guaranteed rights were violated when he was subjected to prosecution based
on false allegations. He includes some/most of the Defendants under the doctrine of respondeat
superior. In that regard, Plaintiff avers that his claims are neither frivolous nor meritless. Instead,
he seeks to get legal redress for the actions and/or inactions of the Defendants, which subjected
him to prosecution based on false allegations.
III. A DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST WOULD AMOUNT TO AN
ABUSE OF THIS COURT’S DISCRETION.
Motions for reconsideration are “creatures of local rule or practice.” United States v.
Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 473 F.3d 915, 955 (9th Cir.2006). Among the various district
court local rules, common grounds that support a motion for reconsideration are the emergence
of new facts, a change in the law, manifest error by the court in the first order (at least in two
districts), and failure to consider material facts. Motorola V. J.B. Rodgers Mechanical
Contractors, 215 F.R.D. at 585–86.
As a general matter, “ ‘[a]s long as a district court has jurisdiction over the case, then it
possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order
for cause seen by it to be sufficient.’ ” City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d
882, 885 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Melancon v. Texaco, 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir.1981) (“[W]e
have long recognized ‘the well-established rule that a district judge always has power to modify
or to overturn an interlocutory order or decision while it remains interlocutory.’ ” (quoting
Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 809 (9th Cir.1963))).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
COMPLAINT
In the instant action, Plaintiff avers that this Honorable Court failed to appreciate the fact
that Plaintiff is indigent and is completely unable to prosecute this case if he is required to pay
court’s fees and costs. Plaintiff avers that there is sufficient cause for this Court to grant
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in fomra pauperis. Notably, this Court possesses the inherent
procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to
be sufficient. Plaintiff therefore requests this Court reconsiders its decision that denied
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff prays this Motion be granted and that this court
reconsiders Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, Plaintiff prays this
Honorable Court to reverse this Court’s Order issued on January 31, 2022. Lastly, Plaintiff also
requests such other and further relief as is just.
Respectfully submitted:
Dated: __
EUN JUNG LIM
Pro se
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
COMPLAINT
EUN JUNG LIM
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff
and
IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
MICHAEL HAMEL, in his official and
individual capacity;
MICHAEL MCNALL, in his official and
individual capacity;
RENE NUTTER in her official and
individual capacity;
SEAN PAUL CRAWFORD in his official
and individual capacity;
ERIC STEELE in his official and individual
capacity;
MICHELE HINIG in her official and
individual capacity;
JAMES MOORE in his official and
individual capacity;
WILLIAM RUSSELL in his official and
individual capacity;
JERRY POOLE in his official and individual
capacity;
MISTY DANIELS in her official and
individual capacity;
TODD SPITZER in his official and
individual capacity;
DUSTIN RICE in his official and individual
capacity;
TAYLOR KRONE in her official and
individual capacity;
Case No.: _
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES THEREOF;
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
COMPLAINT
ALLISON TAYLOR TARGOFF in her
official and individual capacity; and
GAGANJOT BATTH, in her official and
individual capacity.
Defendants
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
COMES NOW Plaintiff under oath, and swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that,
because of his poverty, he cannot prepay the Court’s fees and costs. Plaintiff believes that he is
entitled to redress. Plaintiff swears or affirms under penalty of perjury under United States laws
that his averments on this declaration are true and correct. (18 U.S.C. § 1621). In support of this
Declaration, Plaintiff shows the following:
- I am the Plaintiff in this case.
- I am [ENTER AGE] years old.
- I am therefore competent to swear on the matters said herein.
- Nature of action: My constitutionally guaranteed rights were violated when I was
subjected to prosecution based on false allegations. I have included some/most of the
Defendants in my Complaint under the doctrine of respondeat superior. - I am currently unemployed. I have been unemployed approximately [ENTER
PERIOD YOU HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED]. - On [ENTER DATE], I applied for state benefits (Calfresh) and got approved on
February 1, 2022. Accordingly, I now live on food stamps.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
COMPLAINT
WHEREFORE, I am unable to pay for the fees and costs of this case, and I request that this
Honorable Court allow me to proceed in forma pauperis.
Respectfully submitted:
[ENTER DATE]
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED
Before me, this day of , 2022.
Notary Public
EUN JUNG LIM
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
EUN JUNG LIM
Pro se
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
COMPLAINT
EUN JUNG LIM
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff
and
IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
MICHAEL HAMEL, in his official and
individual capacity;
MICHAEL MCNALL, in his official and
individual capacity;
RENE NUTTER in her official and
individual capacity;
SEAN PAUL CRAWFORD in his official
and individual capacity;
ERIC STEELE in his official and individual
capacity;
MICHELE HINIG in her official and
individual capacity;
JAMES MOORE in his official and
individual capacity;
WILLIAM RUSSELL in his official and
individual capacity;
JERRY POOLE in his official and individual
capacity;
MISTY DANIELS in her official and
individual capacity;
TODD SPITZER in his official and
individual capacity;
DUSTIN RICE in his official and individual
capacity;
TAYLOR KRONE in her official and
individual capacity;
Case No.: _
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES THEREOF;
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
COMPLAINT
ALLISON TAYLOR TARGOFF in her
official and individual capacity; and
GAGANJOT BATTH, in her official and
individual capacity.
Defendants
ORDER
Having read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Declaration in
support of Plaintiff’s request to proceed in Forma Pauperis, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request
herein and
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this Court’s Order issued on January 31, 2022 is hereby reversed,
and Plaintiff be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in the above-referenced case.
SO ORDERED, this the _ day _____of, 2022.
JUDGE, US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
COMPLAINT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the foregoing document have been
sent to the Defendants in the following address:
[ENTER DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESSES]
DATED:
EUN JUNG LIM
Pro see
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )
