Walters v. Sheriff et al

Filing 3

ORDER: 1) denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and 2) Dismissing Civil Action as Frivolous Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 7/5/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (fth)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LEONARD WALTERS, aka
JAMES C. WALTERS,
CDCR #BC-6589,

13

Case No.: 3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL
ORDER:
Plaintiff,

14

1) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
[ECF No. 2]

vs.

15
16

SHERIFF, San Diego County, et al.,

17

AND

Defendants.

18

2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION
AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

19
20
21
22

LEONARD WALTERS, also known as James C. Walters (“Plaintiff”), currently

23

incarcerated at California Institution for Men (“CIM”) in Chino, California, and

24

proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF

25

No. 1).

26

He has not prepaid the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but

27

instead has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

28

§ 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).
1
3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL

1

I.

2

Motion to Proceed IFP
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the

3

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

4

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 1 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to

5

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the

7

plaintiff is a prisoner at the time of filing, he may be granted leave to proceed IFP, but he

8

nevertheless remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments,” see Williams v.

9

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his action is

10

ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d

11

844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). A “prisoner” is defined as “any person” who at the time of

12

filing is “incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of,

13

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or

14

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C.

15

§ 1915(h); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 847.

16

In order to comply with the PLRA, prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP must

17

also submit a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account statement (or institutional

18

equivalent) ... for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the

19

complaint....” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). From the certified trust account statement, the

20

Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the

21

account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the

22

past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915(b)(1), (4); see Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850. Thereafter, the institution having custody

24

of the prisoner collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s

25
26
27
28

1

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative
fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court
Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June 1, 2016). The additional $50 administrative fee does
not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.
2
3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL

1

income, in any month in which the prisoner’s account exceeds $10, and forwards them to

2

the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

3

While Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),

4

he has not attached a certified copy of his CIM trust account statements for the 6-month

5

period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2);

6

S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. Section 1915(a)(2) clearly requires that prisoners “seeking to bring

7

a civil action ... without prepayment of fees ... shall submit a certified copy of the trust

8

fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) ... for the 6-month period

9

immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (emphasis

10

added).

11

Without Plaintiff’s certified trust account statement, the Court is unable to assess

12

the appropriate amount of the initial filing fee which is statutorily required to initiate the

13

prosecution of this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). For this reason, Plaintiff’s Motion

14

to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED.

15

II.

16

Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, also obligates

17

the Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility

18

who is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law

19

or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,”

20

“as soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays

21

filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this

22

provision of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[]

23

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to

24

dismiss those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a

25

claim upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a

26

defendant who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d

27

443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).

28

“The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need
3
3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL

1

not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir.

2

2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir.

3

2012)).

4

Regardless of whether Plaintiff paid the filing fee, or filed a properly supported

5

Motion to Proceed IFP, however, a preliminary review of his Complaint shows this case

6

is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it is

7

duplicative of another civil action Plaintiff filed in the Southern District just three weeks

8

before he filed this case. See Walters v. Sheriff, et al.., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-

9

00902-GPC-JMA (“Walters I”) (ECF No. 1). A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in

10

other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings

11

have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th

12

Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).

13

A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it

14

“merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d

15

1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and

16

internal quotations omitted). In Walters I, Plaintiff alleged, as he does in this case, that

17

several unidentified San Diego County Sheriff’s Department deputies, doctors, and

18

“medical staff” provided him inadequate medical care and subjected him to a

19

“demoralizing” strip search while he was in their custody in late April and early May

20

2016. Compare S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-00902-GPC-JMA (ECF No. 1 at 2-7)

21

with ECF No. 1 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL (ECF No. 1 at 2-

22

10).

23

Because the allegations in Plaintiff’s current Complaint are factually similar, arose

24

during the same two-week period of time, and are based on the same legal grounds as

25

those he alleged against a similar group of “unknown” Sheriff’s Department officials in

26

his previously filed Complaint in Walters I, the Court will dismiss this duplicative and

27

subsequently filed civil case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at

28

1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs.,
4
3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL

1

487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the second action is

2

duplicative of the first, [the court must] examine whether the causes of action and relief

3

sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on other

4

grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).

5

III.

Conclusion and Order

6

For the reasons discussed, the Court:

7

1)

8

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a);

9

2)

DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 1915A(b)(1), but without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pursuit of the same claims as alleged

11

in his previously filed civil action in Walters v. Sheriff, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.

12

17-cv-00902-GPC-JMA; 1 and

13
14

3)

CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would not be taken in good

faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

15

The Clerk shall close the file.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: July 5, 2017

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that on May 11, 2017, Judge Curiel also denied Plaintiff’s Motion to
Proceed IFP based on his failure to submit a certified copy of his prison trust account
statements as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Walters v. Sheriff, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil
Case No. 3:17-cv-00902-GPC-JMA (ECF No. 3 at 3). While Judge Curiel granted Plaintiff
leave to file a new, properly supported IFP Motion in that case, (id. at 4), he has yet to do
so. But should he wish to proceed, Plaintiff must do so in that action, not this one.
5
3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL