Butler v. Kelso et al
Filing
4
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Imposing no initial partial filing fee and Garnishing Balance from Prisoners Trust Account. Directing US Marshal to effect service of complaint. The Secretary CDCR, or his designee, is ordered to collect from prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month income credited to the account and f orward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 USC 1915(b)(2). (Order electronically transmitted to Matthew Cate, Secretary CDCR) Clerk to prepare IFP Packet. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 03/01/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
THEODORE BUTLER,
CDCR #E-49151,
Civil No.
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
16
17
18
19
CLARK KELSO; J. RIVERA;
J. WALKER; RICKI BARNETT;
P. JAYUNSUNDARA; L.D. ZAMORA,
AND
20
Defendants.
21
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING
NO INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE
AND GARNISHING BALANCE
FROM PRISONER’S TRUST
ACCOUNT PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
[ECF No. 2]
14
15
11-2684 CAB (RBB)
(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO
EFFECT SERVICE OF COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO F ED.R.C IV.P. 4(c)(3)
& 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)
22
23
Theodore Butler (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Richard J.
24
Donovan Correctional Facility (“Donovan”) located in San Diego, California, and proceeding
25
in pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that
26
prison officials have denied his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate medical
27
care. (See Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 8.)
28
///
K:\COMMON\CHMB_Bencivengo\Cases\Habeas\Butler--11cv2684\grt IFP & serve.wpd
1
11cv2684 CAB (RBB)
1
Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead he
2
has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF
3
No. 2].
4
I.
5
M OTION TO P ROCEED IFP
6
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United
7
States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28
8
U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee
9
only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v.
10
Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner granted leave to proceed IFP
11
remains obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether his action is
12
ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847
13
(9th Cir. 2002).
14
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a
15
prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account
16
statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately
17
preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,
18
1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess an initial
19
payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or
20
(b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater,
21
unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The
22
institution having custody of the prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of
23
the preceding month’s income, in any month in which the prisoner’s account exceeds $10, and
24
forward those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid.
25
§ 1915(b)(2).
26
///
27
///
28
///
K:\COMMON\CHMB_Bencivengo\Cases\Habeas\Butler--11cv2684\grt IFP & serve.wpd
2
See 28 U.S.C.
11cv2684 CAB (RBB)
1
The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of his trust account statement
Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119.
2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. C AL. C IVLR 3.2.
3
Plaintiff’s trust account statement shows he has insufficient funds with which to pay any initial
4
partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be
5
prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment for the
6
reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay [an] initial partial filing
7
fee.”); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve”
8
preventing dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP case based solely on a “failure to pay ... due to the lack
9
of funds available.”).
10
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 2], and
11
assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the entire $350
12
balance of the filing fees mandated shall be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court
13
pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
14
II.
15
S CREENING P URSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)
16
The PLRA also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding
17
IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused
18
of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or
19
conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as
20
practicable after docketing.”
21
provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof,
22
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who
23
are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-
24
27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.
25
2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).
Under these
26
“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all
27
allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the
28
plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Barren v. Harrington,
K:\COMMON\CHMB_Bencivengo\Cases\Habeas\Butler--11cv2684\grt IFP & serve.wpd
3
11cv2684 CAB (RBB)
1
152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that § 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal
2
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In addition, courts “have an obligation where the petitioner
3
is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the
4
petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 4673711 at *3 & n.7
5
(9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)). The court may
6
not, however, “supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board
7
of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “Vague and
8
conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to
9
withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id.
10
As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations sufficient to survive the sua
11
sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).1 See Lopez, 203 F.3d at
12
1126-27. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf.
13
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform
14
all duties in [IFP] cases.”); F ED.R.C IV.P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made
15
by a United States marshal or deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma
16
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).
17
III.
18
C ONCLUSION AND O RDER
19
Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
20
1.
21
22
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2] is
GRANTED.
2.
The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his
23
designee, is ordered to collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing
24
fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount equal
25
to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income credited to the account and forward
26
payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in
27
1
28
Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of,
and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12[] motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.”
Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).
K:\COMMON\CHMB_Bencivengo\Cases\Habeas\Butler--11cv2684\grt IFP & serve.wpd
4
11cv2684 CAB (RBB)
1
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
2
IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.
3
3.
ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Matthew Cate,
4
Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 942883,
5
Sacramento, California 94283-0001.
6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
7
4.
The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] upon
8
Defendants and shall and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for
9
each Defendant. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order
10
and a certified copy of his Complaint and the summons so that he may serve Defendants. Upon
11
receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and
12
accurately as possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the
13
instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Upon receipt,
14
the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon Defendants as directed
15
by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285s. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.
16
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); F ED.R.C IV.P. 4(c)(3).
17
5.
Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s Complaint within the
18
time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). See 42
19
U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant may occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to
20
reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility
21
under section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28
22
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on
23
the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to prevail on the
24
merits,” the defendant is required to respond).
25
6.
Plaintiff shall serve upon the Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by
26
counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document
27
submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be
28
filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy
K:\COMMON\CHMB_Bencivengo\Cases\Habeas\Butler--11cv2684\grt IFP & serve.wpd
5
11cv2684 CAB (RBB)
1
of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service.
2
Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to
3
include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.
4
5
DATED: March 1, 2012
6
7
CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K:\COMMON\CHMB_Bencivengo\Cases\Habeas\Butler--11cv2684\grt IFP & serve.wpd
6
11cv2684 CAB (RBB)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?