Sonnier
Sonnier v. Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Wilbert Sonnier appeals the dismissal of his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) & (iii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and on the ground that he named persons who are immune from suit.
He challenges that statute on equal protection grounds, claiming in essence that courts cannot sua sponte dismiss informa pauperis complaints before the defendants are served and appear. In order to succeed, he must establish either that the provision burdens a fundamental right or targets a suspect class and is not necessary to achieve a government interest, or that it bears no rational relationship to the achievement of a legitimate governmental objective. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 , 116 S.Ct. 1620 , 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996).
The statute does not burden a fundamental right, because a proceeding IFP is a privilege, not a right. See, e.g., Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir.1965); Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir.1960). There is no contention that the statute targets a suspect class, nor is poverty a classification subject to heightened security. See, e.g., San Antonio Indep. Sch.…