Nelson v. Imperial Beach, City of et al

Filing 6

ORDER Denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff is granted an additional forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order in which to re-open this case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing fee, or (2) filing a new Motion to Proceed IFP. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/10/18. (Court-approved IFP form mailed to Plaintiff) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ROBERT L. NELSON,
aka JAMAL MYXZ,
Booking #17145564,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

vs.
[ECF No. 3]

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

ROBERT L. NELSON (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at George Bailey Detention

19

Facility (“GBDF”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, initiated this civil

20

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 19, 2017 (ECF No. 1). While

21

devoid of specifics, Plaintiff’s original Complaint alleged he had been “attacked” by the

22

Imperial Beach Sheriff’s Department, and had been defamed and detained by them

23

through the use of drugged and diseased informants who used “unlawful advantage” to

24

“gain entry to [his] residence.” (Id. at 1-3.)

25

I.

26

Procedural Background
On October 4, 2017, the Court dismissed the case because Plaintiff failed to prepay

27

the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and did not file a Motion to

28

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). A week
1
3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

1

later, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which was accepted for filing

2

as a matter of course pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff’s FAC no

3

longer names the City of Imperial Beach or its Sheriff’s Department as Defendants; it

4

instead alleges two San Diego Superior Court Judges, Plaintiff’s public defender, and an

5

Imperial Beach Sheriff’s Department deputy violated his Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

6

Amendment rights, as well as his right to “universal male sufferage,” by unlawfully

7

arresting, representing, harassing, and detaining him. (ECF No. 5 at 2-5). Plaintiff’s FAC

8

seeks damages and injunctive relief related to his ongoing criminal proceedings and

9

demands his immediate release. (Id. at 7.)

10

II.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

§ 1915(h); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 847.

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-01913-GPC-KSC

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). From the certified trust account statement, the Court assesses an

5

initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six

6

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

7

whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (4);

8

see Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850. Thereafter, the institution having custody of the prisoner

9

collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any

10

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

11

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

12

While Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

13

§ 1915(a), he has not attached a certified copy of his prison trust account statements for

14

the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C.

15

§ 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. Section 1915(a)(2) clearly requires that prisoners

16

“seeking to bring a civil action ... without prepayment of fees ... shall submit a certified

17

copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) ... for the 6-month

18

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

19

(emphasis added).
Without Plaintiff’s trust account statements, the Court is unable to assess the

20
21

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

22

prosecution of this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

23

III.

Conclusion and Order

24

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:

25

(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3) is DENIED and the action is

26

again DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required by

27

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

28

///
3
3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

1

(2)

Plaintiff is GRANTED an additional forty-five (45) days from the date of

2

this Order in which to re-open this case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and

3

administrative filing fee, or (2) filing a new Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes a

4

certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of

5

his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2(b).2

6

(3)

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with another

7

Court-approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” in

8

this matter. If Plaintiff neither pays the $400 filing fee in full nor sufficiently completes

9

and files the attached Motion to Proceed IFP, together with a certified copy of his trust

10

account statement within 45 days, this action will remained dismissed without prejudice

11

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without further Order of the Court.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2018

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

2

Plaintiff is again cautioned that if he chooses to proceed either by prepaying the full $400
civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his FAC (ECF
No. 5), filed on November 2, 2017, and which supersedes his original pleading, see S.D.
CAL. CIVLR 15.1, will be screened before service and may be dismissed sua sponte
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether
he pays or is obligated to pay filing fees. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th
Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the
court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes
v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”).
4
3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC