Rademaker v. Paramo et al
Filing
6
ORDER: (1) Granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and (2) Directing U.S. Marshal to Effect Service of Summons and Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3). 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 mon th 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). Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 3/13/2018. (Order electronically transmitted to Secretary of CDCR) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Certified Copy to USM) (mxn)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
Case No.: 3:17-cv-02406-BTM-JLB
DAVID RADEMAKER
P-01361,
13
14
15
16
17
ORDER:
Plaintiff,
1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a) (ECF No. 2)
v.
D. PARAMO; G. STRATTON; J.
JUAREZ; E. GAREZ,
Defendants.
AND
18
2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO
EFFECT SERVICE OF SUMMONS
AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)
AND Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3)
19
20
21
22
23
David Rademaker (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan
24
Correctional Facility located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a
25
civil rights complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff
26
did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a
27
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).
1
3:17-cv-02406-BTM-JLB
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\17cv2406-grt IFP & serve.docm
1
I.
2
Plaintiff’s 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 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v.
7
Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if a prisoner, like Plaintiff, is
8
granted leave to proceed IFP, he remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments,”
9
see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his
10
action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2).
11
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
12
(“PLRA”), a prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a “certified copy of the
13
trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-
14
month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C.
15
§ 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified
16
trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average
17
monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly
18
balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner
19
has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution
20
having custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the
21
preceding month’s income, in any month in which the prisoner’s account exceeds $10,
22
and forwards those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C.
23
§ 1915(b)(2).
24
25
26
27
1
In addition to the $350 statutory fee, all parties filing civil actions on or after May 1, 2013, 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) (eff. May 1, 2013). However, the additional $50 administrative fee
is waived if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.
2
3:17-cv-02406-BTM-JLB
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\17cv2406-grt IFP & serve.docm
1
In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of his trust
2
account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. Andrews,
3
398 F.3d at 1119. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s trust account statement, but it
4
shows that he has a current available balance of zero. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4)
5
(providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action
6
or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no
7
assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.”); Taylor v. Delatoore,
8
281 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-
9
valve” preventing dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP case based solely on a “failure to pay . . .
10
due to the lack of funds available to him when payment is ordered.”).
11
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) and
12
assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the entire $350
13
balance of the filing fees mandated will be collected by the California Department of
14
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court
15
pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
16
II.
17
Initial Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s IFP status or the payment of any partial filing fees, the
18
PLRA also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP
19
and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and]
20
accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the
21
terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as
22
soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under
23
these statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof,
24
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from
25
defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b); Lopez v.
26
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v.
27
Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
3
3:17-cv-02406-BTM-JLB
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\17cv2406-grt IFP & serve.docm
1
All complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
2
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are
3
not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
4
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
5
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Determining
6
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that
7
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.
8
The “mere possibility of misconduct” falls short of meeting this plausibility standard.
9
Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
10
“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
11
veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”
12
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
13
(“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all
14
allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to
15
the plaintiff.”); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that §
16
1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”).
17
However, while the court “ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se,
18
particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the
19
petitioner the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir.
20
2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)), it may not
21
“supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of
22
Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
23
As currently pleaded, the Court finds allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint which are
24
sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
25
1915A(b). Accordingly, the Court will direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service on
26
Plaintiff’s behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and
27
serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he
4
3:17-cv-02406-BTM-JLB
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\17cv2406-grt IFP & serve.docm
1
court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal . . . if
2
the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).
3
III.
Conclusion and Order
4
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1.
6
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No.
2) is GRANTED.
7
2.
The Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, shall collect from Plaintiff’s
8
prison trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments
9
from the account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s
10
income and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the
11
account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS
12
SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED
13
TO THIS ACTION.
14
3.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Scott
15
Kernan, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box
16
942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001.
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
18
4.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint
19
(ECF No. 1) upon Defendants and forward it to Plaintiff along with blank U.S. Marshal
20
Form 285s for each named Defendant. In addition, the Clerk is directed provide Plaintiff
21
with a certified copy of this Order and a certified copy of his Complaint (ECF No. 1) and
22
the summons so that he may serve each named Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP
23
Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as
24
possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions
25
provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package.
26
///
27
///
5
3:17-cv-02406-BTM-JLB
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\17cv2406-grt IFP & serve.docm
1
5.
Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal is ORDERED to serve a copy of the
2
Complaint and summons upon the named Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the USM
3
Form 285s. All costs of service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C.
4
§ 1915(d); Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3).
5
6.
Plaintiff must serve upon the Defendants or, if appearance has been entered
6
by counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other
7
document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff must include with the
8
original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the manner in
9
which a true and correct copy of the document was served on the Defendants, or counsel
10
for Defendants, and the date of that service. Any paper received by the Court which has
11
not been properly filed with the Clerk, or which fails to include a Certificate of Service,
12
may be disregarded.
13
14
Dated: March 13, 2018
Hon. Barry Ted. Moskowitz
Chief Judge, United States District Court
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
6
3:17-cv-02406-BTM-JLB
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\17cv2406-grt IFP & serve.docm
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?