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)”
How later courts described this case
- 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)”
- discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARCUS CALDWELL, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0040-CAB-RBB
Booking #91244298,
12
ORDER:
Plaintiff,
13
vs. 1) GRANTING MOTION TO
14
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
15 [ECF No. 2]
MIKE WASSER; PETERS/
16
PATTERSON, AND
17 Defendants.
2) DIRECTING US MARSHAL TO
18
EFFECT SERVICE OF COMPLAINT
19
20
21
22 Marcus Caldwell (“Plaintiff”), a pretrial detainee currently housed at the Otay
23 Mesa Detention Center (“OMDC”), located in San Diego, California has brought a civil
24 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has also filed a
25 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No.
26 2).
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 I. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion
2 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
1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative
27 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
28
1 In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his Inmate
2 Statement Report as well as a Prison Certificate completed by a trust account official at
3 OMDC. See ECF No. 2 at 4, 6-7; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2; Andrews,
4 398 F.3d at 1119. These documents show Plaintiff carried an average monthly balance of
5 $50.00 and maintained $70.00 in average monthly deposits to his trust account for the 6-
6 months preceding the filing of this action. See ECF No. 2 at 4.
7 Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) and
8 assesses his initial partial filing fee to be $14.00 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The
9 Court further directs the Warden of OMDC, or their designee, to collect this initial filing
10 fee only if sufficient funds are available in Plaintiff’s account at the time this Order is
11 executed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be
12 prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment
13 for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial
14 partial filing fee.”); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 630; Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28
15 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve” preventing dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP case
16 based solely on a “failure to pay ... due to the lack of funds available to him when
17 payment is ordered.”). The remaining balance of the $350 total fee owed in this case must
18 be collected by the agency having custody of the prisoner and forwarded to the Clerk of
19 the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
20 II. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)
21 A. Standard of Review
22 Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his Complaint also requires a
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
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 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Fourth Amendment
22 excessive force claims sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28
23 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b).1 Specifically, Plaintiff claims Defendants sexually
24 assaulted him while effecting his arrest. See Compl. at 3-6; Bivens v. Six Unknown
25
26
27 1 Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is
cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [the defendant]
28 may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).
1 Named Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 395 (1971) (“[D]amages may be obtained
2 for injuries consequent upon a violation of the Fourth Amendment by federal officials.”);
3 Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 711 F.3d 941, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing in a
4 Bivens action, that “Fourth Amendment claims of excessive force are evaluated according
5 to the framework established by Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)). Therefore,
6 the Court shall order U.S. Marshal service on Plaintiff’s behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at
7 1126-27; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all
8 process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) (providing that
9 “service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States marshal, or other
10 officer specially appointed by the court . . . when the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in
11 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).2
12 III. Conclusion and Order
13 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
14 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No.
15 2) is GRANTED.
16 2. The Warden of OMDC, or their designee, shall collect from Plaintiff’s
17 prison trust account the initial filing fee assessed in this Order, and shall forward the
18 remainder of the $350 filing fee owed by collecting monthly payments from Plaintiff’s
19 account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income
20 and shall forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account
21 exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE
22 CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS
23 ACTION.
24
25
2 Plaintiff is further cautioned that it is his responsibility to “provide[ ] the marshal with sufficient
26 information to serve” the Defendants. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994),
overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418
27 (1995). If Plaintiff is unable to provide the marshal with the information necessary to sufficiently
identify and locate Defendant Peters or Patterson within 120 days, his action may face dismissal
28 pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m). See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.
| 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Warden,
2 Otay Mesa Detention Center, P.O. Box 91244298, San Diego, California 92154.
3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
4 4. The Clerk shall issue a summons upon Defendant, and forward it to Plaintiff
5 || along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for the Defendant. In addition, the Clerk shall
6 || provide Plaintiff with a copy of this Order, and a copy of his Complaint and summons for
7 || purposes of serving the Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is
8 || directed to complete the USM Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and
9 || to return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions provided by the
10 || Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall
11 ||Serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon both the Defendant and the United
12 States as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285s. All costs of service shall be
13 advanced by the United States.
14 5. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by
15 |{counsel, upon Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document
16 Submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to
17 || be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and
1g || Comrect copy of any document was served on Defendant, or counsel for Defendant, and
19 the date of service. Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the
20 Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.
1 Dated: March 11, 2020
22 ( □
23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
54 United States District Judge
25
26
27
28