Heizelman
Heizelman v. San Diego Police Dept.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ROBERT HEIZELMAN, Case No.: 22-CV-1674-CAB-DDL
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPT., et al.,
PREJUDICE
Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 3]
14 On October 27, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Heizelman filed a Complaint [Doc. No. 1] 15 against the San Diego Police Department, the San Diego Sheriff’s Office, and 16 unidentified officers demanding $10,000,000 and punitive damages for alleged civil 17 rights violations. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No. 3]. Plaintiff 18 did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; 19 instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] For the reasons mentioned below, the IFP is GRANTED, the 21 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the Motion to Appoint Counsel is 22 DENIED as moot.