Williams v. Paramo et al

Filing 3

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. US Marshal shall 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 th is 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). (Order electronically transmitted to Secretary of CDCR). Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 2/7/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

KENNETH WILLIAMS,
CDCR #J-17517,

ORDER:

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

vs.

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

15
16
17
18
19

D. PARAMO, Warden;
R. BROWN, Community Resource
Manager; E. GARZA, Captain;
IMAM KAHN, Chaplain,

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)

Defendants.

20
21
22
23

KENNETH WILLIAMS (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the California

24

Medical Facility (“CMF”) in Vacaville, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed this

25

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1.

26

Plaintiff claims several prison officials at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility

27

(“RJD”), in San Diego, California, violated his right to free exercise of religion and equal

28

protection of the laws by failing to permit him to participate in Ramadan in May 2017,
1
3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

1

while he was incarcerated at RJD. See id. at 2-4. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief

2

preventing “prisoners” from facilitating Islamic services,1 as well as general and punitive

3

damages “to be determined.” Id. at 7.

4

Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence

5

a civil action at the time he filed suit; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma

6

Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2.

7

I.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

§ 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v.

13

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to

14

proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,”

15

Bruce v. Samuels, __ S. Ct. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775

16

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

17

dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th

18

Cir. 2002).

19

///

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

While Plaintiff does not specify the scope of the injunctive relief he seeks, see ECF No.
1 at 7, any request for injunctive or other equitable relief related to RJD’s policies or
practices have been rendered moot by his transfer to CMF. See Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d
1130, 1138 (9th Cir. 2013) (“When an inmate challenges prison conditions at a particular
correctional facility, but has been transferred from the facility and has no reasonable
expectation of returning, his claim [for injunctive relief] is moot.”) (citing Johnson v.
Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991)). In such circumstances, claims for injunctive
relief are moot because the prisoner “‘no longer is subjected to [the allegedly
unconstitutional] policies.’” Id. (quoting Johnson, 948 F.3d at 519); see also Dilley v.
Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1372 (9th Cir. 1995).
2
3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

1

Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a

2

“certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for ... the

3

6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified

5

trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average

6

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

7

balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner

8

has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having

9

custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the

10

preceding month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards

11

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

12

Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629.

13

In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his CDCR Inmate

14

Statement Report, see ECF No. 2 at 6-7, together with a prison certificate completed by

15

an accounting official at CMF attesting to his trust account activity. Id. at 5; see also 28

16

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. These statements

17

show that Plaintiff had an average monthly balance of $9.02, and average monthly

18

deposits of $9.38 to his account over the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing

19

of his Complaint, but an available balance of zero at the time of filing. Based on this

20

financial information, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No.

21

2), and assesses his initial partial filing fee to be $1.87 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 1915(b)(1).

23

However, the Court will direct the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to

24

collect this initial fee only if sufficient funds are available in Plaintiff’s account at the

25

time this Order is executed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event

26

shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or

27

criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to

28

pay the initial partial filing fee.”); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 630; Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850
3
3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

1

(finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve” preventing dismissal of a

2

prisoner’s IFP case based solely on a “failure to pay ... due to the lack of funds available

3

to him when payment is ordered.”). The remaining balance of the $350 total fee owed in

4

this case must be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 1915(b)(1).

6

II.

7

Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s IFP status or the payment of any filing fees, the PLRA

8

also requires the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by

9

those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of,

10

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

11

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as

12

practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these

13

statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any complaint, or any portion of a complaint,

14

which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants

15

who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b); Lopez v. Smith, 203

16

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621

17

F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).

18

All complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

19

the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are

20

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

21

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

22

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Determining whether

23

a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] ... a context-specific task that requires

24

the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere

25

possibility of misconduct” falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; see also

26

Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

27
28

“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”
4
3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

1

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)

2

(“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

3

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to

4

the plaintiff.”); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that

5

§ 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”).

6

However, while the court “ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se,

7

particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the

8

petitioner the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir.

9

2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)), it may not

10

“supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of

11

the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint contains free exercise

12
13

of religion and equal protection claims sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for

14

proceeding past the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and

15

1915A(b). See Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); Hartmann v.

16

Cal. Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122-24 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing

17

pleading requirements for prisoner’s free exercise of religion and equal protection

18

claims).

19

Accordingly, the Court will direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon the

20

Defendants on Plaintiff’s behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall

21

issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); FED. R. CIV. P.

22

4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or

23

deputy marshal . . . if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28

24

U.S.C. § 1915.”).

25

III.

Conclusion and Orders

26

Good cause appearing, the Court:

27

1.

28

GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

(ECF No. 2).
5
3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

1

2.

ORDERS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from

2

Plaintiff’s trust account the $1.87 initial filing fee assessed, if those funds are available at

3

the time this Order is executed, and to forward whatever balance remains of the full $350

4

owed in monthly payments in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding

5

month’s income to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account

6

exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE

7

CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS

8

ACTION.

9
10
11

3.

DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Scott

Kernan, Secretary, CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001.
4.

DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF

12

No. 1) and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each

13

Defendant. In addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order,

14

a certified copy of his Complaint, and the summons so that he may serve the Defendants.

15

Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must complete the Form 285s as completely

16

and accurately as possible, include an address where each named Defendant may be

17

served, see S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1.c, and return them to the United States Marshal

18

according to the instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying his IFP

19

package;

20

5.

ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons

21

upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285 provided to him. All

22

costs of that service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed.

23

R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3);

24

6.

ORDERS Defendants, once served, to reply to Plaintiff’s Complaint within

25

the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a).

26

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant may occasionally be permitted to “waive

27

the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other

28

correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte
6
3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

1

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a

2

preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a

3

“reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” defendant is required to respond); and

4

7.

ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to

5

serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’

6

counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the

7

Court’s consideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). Plaintiff must include with every

8

original document he seeks to file with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the

9

manner in which a true and correct copy of that document has been was served on

10

Defendants or Defendants’ counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 5.2.

11

Any document received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk, or

12

which fails to include a Certificate of Service upon the Defendants, may be disregarded.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS