Soto v. People of California
Filing
8
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. 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 forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 USC 1915(b)(2). The Court D IRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Warden, GEO Western Region Detention Facility, 200 West C Street, San Diego, California, 92101; DISMISSES this civil action without leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 8/2/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)Copy of order served on Warden via U.S. Mail(acc).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
ISRAEL SOTO,
Reg. No. 46410-298,
ORDER:
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
14
Case No.: 3:17-cv-0965-AJB-MDD
1) GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[ECF No. 2]
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
15
Defendant.
AND
16
2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION
FOR FAILING TO STATE A
CLAIM PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
AND § 1915A(b)(1)
17
18
19
20
21
ISRAEL SOTO (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at GEO
22
Western Region Detention Facility (“WRDF”) in San Diego, proceeding pro se, and
23
awaiting sentencing after entering a plea agreement in United States v. Soto, S.D. Cal.
24
Criminal Case No. 14-cr-00216-MMA, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42
25
U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.)1
26
27
1
28
Plaintiff has attached a letter from his appointed counsel in four criminal cases filed against him in the
Southern District of California. See ECF No. 2 at 4. They are United States v. Nguyen, et al., S.D. Cal.
1
3:17-cv-0965-AJB-MDD
1
Plaintiff has not prepaid the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to
2
commence a civil action; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
3
(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).
4
I.
5
Motion to Proceed IFP
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the
6
United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
7
$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to
8
prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
9
§ 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v.
10
Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to
11
proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,”
12
Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185
13
(9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28
14
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).
15
Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a “certified
16
copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for ... the 6-month
17
period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2);
18
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account
19
statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly
20
deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the
21
account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. 28
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Crim. Case No. 14cr00216-MMA; United States v. Miranda-Verdugo, et al., S.D. Cal. Crim. Case No.
14cr00219-MMA; United States v. Nguyen, et al., S.D. Cal. Crim. Case No. 14cr00221-MMA; and
United States v. Soto, et al., 14cr00224-MMA. Plaintiff entered a guilty plea in 14cr00216 on November
3, 2016 (ECF No. 571), and awaits a sentencing hearing before Judge Anello currently scheduled for
August 7, 2017 (ECF No. 605). See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (court “‘may
take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those
proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’”) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d
801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).
2
3:17-cv-0965-AJB-MDD
1
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the
2
prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s
3
income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to
4
the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct.
5
at 629.
6
In support of his Motion to Proceed IFP, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his
7
“Resident Account Summary” from WRDF, together with a prison certificate completed
8
by a correctional counselor attesting to his trust account activity. See ECF No. 3 at 1, 3-4;
9
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. These
10
statements show that Plaintiff had an average monthly balance of $1,200, and average
11
monthly deposits of $30 to his account over the 6-month period immediately preceding
12
the filing of his Complaint, as well as an available balance of $1,322.57 in his account at
13
the time he filed it. See ECF No. 3 at 1, 3.
14
Based on this financial information, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
15
to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2), and assesses his initial partial filing fee to be $240 pursuant
16
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the Court will direct the Warden of the GEO
17
WRDF, or his designee, to collect this initial fee only if sufficient funds are available in
18
Plaintiff’s account at the time this Order is executed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4)
19
(providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action
20
or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no
21
assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.”); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at
22
630; Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve”
23
preventing dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP case based solely on a “failure to pay ... due to
24
the lack of funds available to him when payment is ordered.”). The remaining balance of
25
the $350 total fee owed in this case must be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the
26
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
27
///
28
///
3
3:17-cv-0965-AJB-MDD
1
II.
Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A
2
A.
3
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his complaint requires a pre-
Standard of Review
4
answer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these
5
statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of
6
it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants
7
who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
8
(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.
9
2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that
10
the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’”
11
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford
12
Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).
13
“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
14
which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of
15
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668
16
F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th
17
Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard
18
applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
19
12(b)(6)”). Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter,
20
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
21
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121.
22
Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
23
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556
24
U.S. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] ... a
25
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience
26
and common sense.” Id. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or “unadorned, the
27
defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting this plausibility
28
standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
4
3:17-cv-0965-AJB-MDD
Plaintiff’s Allegations
1
B.
2
Plaintiff claims that the “People of California” violated his “rights for a timely
3
appeal” of a judicial termination of his parental rights while he was in custody, and facing
4
criminal charges in San Diego Superior Court’s East County before Judge Patricia
5
Cookson in Case No. SCE332422 on July 9, 2015. Plaintiff contends he was represented
6
by a public defender at the time, and he believed his criminal attorney would file an
7
appeal of the custody termination on his behalf. See ECF No. 1 at 1, 3-4. “But to [his]
8
disappointment,” at some later time, Plaintiff “received a letter informing [him] that [his]
9
time to file [an appeal] has passed.” Id. at 4.
10
C.
11
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
42 U.S.C. § 1983
12
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
13
violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
14
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Naffe v. Frye, 789 F.3d 1030,
15
1035-36 (9th Cir. 2015).
16
D.
17
Plaintiff’s Complaint requires sua sponte dismissal because he has failed to state a
18
claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Rhodes,
19
621 F.3d at 1004. He names the “People of the State of California” as the sole Defendant.
20
See ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff may not sustain an action against the State, however; nor
21
may he sue the California “Department of Family Services,” whom he claims took
22
custody of his minor children after his parental rights were terminated. Id. at 3.
Discussion
23
The Eleventh Amendment erects a general bar against federal lawsuits brought
24
against the State itself. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2010)
25
(citation and quotation marks omitted). And while “[t]he Eleventh Amendment does not
26
bar suits against a state official for prospective relief,” Wolfson, 616 F.3d at 1065-66
27
(emphasis added), suits against the state or its agencies are barred absolutely, regardless
28
of the form of relief sought, e.g., Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465
5
3:17-cv-0965-AJB-MDD
1
U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Buckwalter v. Nevada Bd. of Medical Examiners, 678 F.3d 737, 740
2
n.1 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Woods v. Dep’t of Child & Family Servs., No. CV-14-94-
3
BMM, 2015 WL 3657609, at *2 (D. Mont. June 12, 2015) (finding the State of
4
Montana’s Department of Child and Family Services was entitled to Eleventh
5
Amendment immunity and was not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
6
(citing Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 267-68 (1997); Wolfe v.
7
Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364 (9th Cir. 2004)).
8
9
10
For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
and § 1915A(b)(1).
11
E.
12
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court would normally grant him leave
Leave to Amend
13
to amend. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th
14
Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be
15
given unless amendment would be futile); FED R. CIV. P. 15(a); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127
16
(leave to amend should be granted unless the district court “determines that the pleading
17
could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.”)
18
However, the Court finds that with respect to the State, amendment in this case
19
would be futile. See Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d
20
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999); Reed v. City of San Diego, No. 06-CV-2724-JM (WMC),
21
2007 WL 951302, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2007) (dismissing with prejudice § 1983
22
claim against the State of California and finding amendment futile since “[e]ven if
23
Plaintiff were to sue the California Department of Justice, she could not prevail as
24
Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state agencies.”).
25
And with respect to Plaintiff’s public defender, whom he does not name as a party,
26
but to whom Plaintiff attributes his lost opportunity to appeal, see ECF No. 1 at 3-4,
27
amendment is also futile because no “allegation of other facts” could support a § 1983
28
claim against him. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. “A public defender does not act under color
6
3:17-cv-0965-AJB-MDD
1
of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in
2
a criminal proceeding,” and therefore is not subject to suit under § 1983. See Polk Cnty.
3
v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Rivera v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 384, 392
4
n.3 (9th Cir. 2014).
5
III.
Conclusion and Orders
6
For the reasons discussed, the Court:
7
1)
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2).
8
2)
ORDERS the Warden of GEO Western Region Detention Facility, or his
9
designee, to collect from Plaintiff’s trust account the $240 initial filing fee assessed, if
10
those funds are available at the time this Order is executed, and forward whatever balance
11
remains of the full $350 owed in monthly payments in an amount equal to twenty percent
12
(20%) of the preceding month’s income to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in
13
Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS
14
MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO
15
THIS ACTION.
16
3)
DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Warden,
17
GEO Western Region Detention Facility, 200 West C Street, San Diego, California,
18
92101.
19
4)
DISMISSES this civil action without leave to amend for failure to state a
20
claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
21
and § 1915A(b)(1), CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith
22
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a final
23
judgment of dismissal and close the file.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 2, 2017
26
27
28
7
3:17-cv-0965-AJB-MDD
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?