Goodlett v. Delgado 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 this 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 Anthony J. Battaglia on 10/11/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Certified Copy to USM) (jrm) (jao).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
RANDALL GOODLETT,
CDCR #AZ-3323,
14
15
16
ORDER:
Plaintiff,
12
13
Case No.: 3:19-cv-01922-AJB-AGS
vs.
1) GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[ECF No. 2]
RAMIRO DELGADO; CHARLES
HAMILTON; PAUL RODRIGUEZ; J.
DEIS,
AND
Defendants.
2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO
EFFECT SERVICE OF COMPLAINT
AND SUMMONS PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3)
17
18
19
20
21
Randall Goodlett (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the Substance Abuse
22
Treatment Facility (“SATF”) located in Corcoran, California, and proceeding pro se, has
23
filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming various prison
24
officials at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) violated his Eighth
25
Amendment rights in 2018. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1-5.)
26
Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when
27
he filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
28
(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).
1
3:19-cv-00125-AJB-MDD
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. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The 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). However,
7
prisoners who are granted leave to proceed IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee in
8
“increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629
9
(2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of
10
whether their action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v.
11
Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).
12
Section 1915(a)(2) also requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a
13
“certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for ... the
14
6-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 having
20
custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the
21
preceding month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards
22
those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2);
23
Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629.
24
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
3:19-cv-00125-AJB-MDD
1
In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his CDCR Inmate
2
Statement Report as well as a Prison Certificate completed by a trust account official at
3
SATF. See ECF No. 2 at 4-7; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2; Andrews, 398
4
F.3d at 1119. These documents show Plaintiff carried an average monthly balance of
5
$99.23, maintained $15.53 in average monthly deposits to his trust account for the 6-
6
months preceding the filing of this action, but had an available balance of $0.00 to his
7
credit at the time of filing. See ECF No. 2 at 4-5.
8
9
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) and
assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). See 28 U.S.C.
10
§ 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a
11
civil action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment for the reason that the
12
prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.”);
13
Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve”
14
preventing dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP case based solely on a “failure to pay . . . due to
15
the lack of funds available to him when payment is ordered.”).
16
However, the entire $350 balance of the filing fees due for this case must be
17
collected by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and
18
forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set
19
forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
20
II.
Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)
21
A.
22
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his Complaint also requires a
Standard of Review
23
pre-answer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these
24
statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of
25
it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants
26
who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
27
(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.
28
2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that
3
3:19-cv-00125-AJB-MDD
1
the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’”
2
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford
3
Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).
4
“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
5
which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of
6
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668
7
F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th
8
Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard
9
applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
10
12(b)(6)”). Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
11
as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
12
662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121.
13
Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
14
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
15
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
16
relief [is] ... a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
17
judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or
18
“unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting
19
this plausibility standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969
20
(9th Cir. 2009).
21
Finally, in deciding whether Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief, the
22
Court may consider exhibits attached to his Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (“A
23
copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all
24
purposes.”); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555
25
n.19 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Amfac Mortg. Corp. v. Ariz. Mall of Tempe, Inc., 583 F.2d
26
426 (9th Cir. 1978) (“[M]aterial which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may
27
be considered” in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.)).
28
4
3:19-cv-00125-AJB-MDD
1
As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint contains “sufficient
2
factual matter, accepted as true,” to state Eighth Amendment claims for relief that are
3
“plausible on its face,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and therefore, sufficient to survive the
4
“low threshold” set for sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
5
1915A(b). See Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1123; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Hudson v. McMillian,
6
503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) (unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates the Cruel and
7
Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment); Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34,
8
37 (2010) (per curiam) (for claims arising out of the use of excessive physical force, the
9
issue is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,
10
or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.”) (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7); United
11
States v. Williams, 842 F.3d 1143, 1153 (9th Cir. 2016) (the Eighth Amendment “requires
12
that prison officials ‘must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the
13
inmates.’”); Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] prison official
14
can violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing to intervene.”).
15
Therefore, the Court will direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service of summons
16
Plaintiff’s Complaint on his behalf.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court
17
shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P.
18
4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or
19
deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28
20
U.S.C. § 1915.”).
21
III.
Conclusion and Order
22
For the reasons explained, the Court:
23
1.
24
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
(ECF No. 2).
25
26
27
28
2
Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative
of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may
choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).
5
3:19-cv-00125-AJB-MDD
1
2.
DIRECTS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to garnish the $350
2
filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from his account in an
3
amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income and forwarding
4
them to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 pursuant
5
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY
6
THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.
7
8
9
3.
DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Ralph
Diaz, Acting Secretary, CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001;
4.
DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF
10
No. 1) and to forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each
11
named Defendant. In addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff with certified copies of this
12
Order, his Complaint, and the summons so that he may serve these Defendants. Upon
13
receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must complete the USM Form 285s as completely
14
and accurately as possible, include an address where each named Defendant may be
15
found and/or subject to service pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1c., and return them to the
16
United States Marshal according to the instructions the Clerk provides in the letter
17
accompanying his IFP package.
18
5.
ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons
19
upon the Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285s provided to him. All
20
costs of that service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed.
21
R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
22
6.
ORDERS Defendants, once they have been served, to reply to Plaintiff’s
23
Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil
24
Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant may occasionally be
25
permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any
26
jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has
27
conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b),
28
and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone
6
3:19-cv-00125-AJB-MDD
1
that Plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” defendant is
2
required to respond).
3
7.
ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to
4
serve upon Defendants, or if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’
5
counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the
6
Court’s consideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). Plaintiff must include with every
7
original document he seeks to file with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the
8
manner in which a true and correct copy of that document has been was served on
9
Defendants or their counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 5.2. Any
10
document received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk or
11
which fails to include a Certificate of Service upon the Defendants, or their counsel, may
12
be disregarded.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: October 11, 2019
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
3:19-cv-00125-AJB-MDD
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?