Young v. Escondido Police Department et al

Filing 6

ORDER: Young's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2 ) and his request to appoint counsel (ECF No. 5 ) are Denied. Young's Complaint (ECF No. 1 ) is Dismissed without prejudice. Young may re-open this case by, on or before 06/11/2018, either: (1) paying the entire $400 filing fee, or (2) filing a new Motion to Proceed IFP and attaching a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 04/17/2018. (Plaintiff served with a copy of this Order and a blank IFP Motion form via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

TRAVIS J. YOUNG,
CDCR #BF-0681,

ORDER

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00497-WQH-WVG

vs.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ESCONDIDO POLICE
DEPARTMENT; VISTA, SAN
DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY;
SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC; VISTA, SAN
DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT;
SAN DIEGO SHERIFF
PROBATION DEPARTMENT;
PUBLIC DEFENDERS VISTA
SAN DIEGO BRANCH;
EUGENE MITCHELL; and
TREAMINE BRADFORD;
Defendants.

25
26

On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff Travis Young filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant

27

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Young is incarcerated at Wasco State Prison in Wasco,

28

California. Id. at 1. Young has not prepaid the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C.
1
3:18-cv-00497-WQH-WVG

1

§ 1914(a), but has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28

2

U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). Young has also filed an ex parte letter to the Court in which

3

he requests the appointment of counsel.1

4

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

5

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

6

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).2 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to

7

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

8

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

9

leave to proceed IFP must also submit a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account

10

statement (or institutional equivalent) . . . for the 6-month period immediately preceding

11

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

12

person” who, at the time of filing, is “incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused

13

of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or

14

the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28

15

U.S.C. § 1915(h); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 847.

A “prisoner” is defined as “any

16

Young has not filed a certified copy of his WSP trust account statements for the 6-

17

month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. Therefore, Young’s

18

Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2), as well as Young’s request for the appointment of

19

counsel (ECF No. 5), which also depends on proof of his indigence, are denied. See

20

Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that,

21
22
23
24
25

Young’s letter also requests that Young v. Cunanan et al., Civil Case No. 3:05-cv-01397-H-AJB,
(“Young v. Cunanan”) be “retroactively open[ed] and settle[d].” (ECF No. 5 at 1). On July 14, 2006,
Judge Huff remanded Young v. Cunanan to the Superior Court of San Diego County pursuant to a joint
stipulation by the parties. Young v. Cunanan ECF No. 49. On March 22, 2018, Judge Huff denied
Plaintiff’s request to re-open Young v. Cunanan. See Young v. Cunanan ECF No. 52.
1

26
2

27
28

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an 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
3:18-cv-00497-WQH-WVG

1

while the IFP statute grants the district court limited discretion to “request” that an attorney

2

represent an indigent civil litigant, that discretion is exercised only under “exceptional

3

circumstances.”).

4

Young’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) and his request to appoint counsel

5

(ECF No. 5) are DENIED. Young’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without

6

prejudice. Young may re-open this case by, on or before June 11, 2018, either: (1) paying

7

the entire $400 filing fee, or (2) filing a new Motion to Proceed IFP and attaching a certified

8

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

9

Complaint in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). The

10

Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Young with a Court-approved form “Motion

11

and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP.”

12

Dated: April 17, 2018

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:18-cv-00497-WQH-WVG