Miles v. California Correctional Health Care Services

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/21/2016 ORDERING plaintiff to submit, within 30 days, an affidavit to proceed ifp or the required fees in the amount of $400.00; and the Clerk shall send plaintiff a new ifp application.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT F. MILES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-1323 KJN P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18
19

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the

20

required filing fee of $350.00 plus the $50.00 administrative fee.1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a),

21

1915(a). Therefore, plaintiff will be provided the opportunity either to submit the appropriate

22

affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or to submit the required fees

23

totaling $400.00.
Plaintiff is cautioned that the in forma pauperis application form includes a section that

24
25

must be completed by a prison official, and the form must be accompanied by a certified copy of

26
27
28

1

If leave to file in forma pauperis is granted, plaintiff will still be required to pay the filing fee
but will be allowed to pay it in installments. Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis are not
required to pay the $50.00 administrative fee.
1

1

plaintiff’s prison trust account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the

2

filing of this action.2

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, an affidavit in

5

support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court, or

6

the required fees in the amount of $400.00; plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result

7

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed; and

8

////

9

////

10

////

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Because it appears that plaintiff cannot allege an actual injury, plaintiff may choose to avoid
incurring this filing fee by voluntarily dismissing this action and filing an action in a state court in
California. Here, plaintiff alleges that the California Correctional Health Care Services
(“CCHCS”) and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation breached the
confidentiality of his medical records in violation of California Health and Safety Code
§ 1280.15. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff claims that this breach placed him at extreme risk of
identity theft. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff seeks monetary relief under California Civil Code
§ 56.36 and Health and Safety Code § 1280.15. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff provided a May 16,
2016 letter from CCHCS informing plaintiff of a “potential breach” of his information on
February 25, 2016, when an unencrypted laptop was stolen from a CCHCS staff person’s vehicle.
(ECF No. 1 at 7.) Although not encrypted, the laptop was password protected. (Id.)
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual “Cases” and
“Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “‘One element of the case-or-controversy requirement’
is that plaintiff [ ] ‘must establish that [he has] standing to sue.’” Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA,
133 S. Ct. 1138, 1146, 185 L. Ed. 2d 264 (2013) (quoting Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117
S. Ct. 2312 (1997)). To satisfy Article III standing, plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact
-- an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b)
actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection
between the injury and the conduct complained of -- the injury has to be fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third
party not before the court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130
(1992) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks, brackets and ellipses omitted).
Here, the letter provided by plaintiff demonstrates only a “potential” breach; the laptop was
secured by a password, and plaintiff alleges no actual misuse of his personal information
stemming from the theft. Indeed, plaintiff states that he is “at risk” of injury. Moreover, the
damages plaintiff seeks are available to him under state law. Unless plaintiff can allege actual
injury, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.
2

1

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a new Application to Proceed In

2

Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner.

3

Dated: June 21, 2016

4
5
mile1323.3a

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3