# Williams v. United States Marshals

> District Court, S.D. California · February 25, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10085331

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** February 25, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10085331

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within 28 1 Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1.
- noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend 26 which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not 27 repled”

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BILLY PAUL WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:22-cv-0139-BAS-BLM
#61027298,
12
ORDER:
Plaintiff,
13 (1) GRANTING MOTION TO
vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
14
(ECF No. 3) AND
UNITED STATES MARSHALS,
15
Defendant. (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
16
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
17 FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE
18
GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
19 § 1915(e)(2) AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

20
21 Plaintiff Billy Paul Williams, currently detained, awaiting trial at the Otay Mesa
22 Detention Center in San Diego, California,1 and proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action
23 on January 31, 2022, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal
24

25
26 1 Plaintiff was arrested on July 31, 2021 and charged with importation of a controlled substance in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. See United States v. Williams, 3:21-cr-2409-WQH-1. He was
27 ordered detained pending trial in that case. Id., ECF No. 19; see also Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212,
1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within
28
1 Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1.) On February 2,
2 2022, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee
3 requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). ECF No. 2. The Court notified Plaintiff that he
4 had 45 days to either (a) pay the $402 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b)
5 complete and file a Motion to Proceed to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). On February
6 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed IFP. (ECF No. 3.)
7 I. Motion to Proceed IFP
8 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 $402.2 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, the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s
14 (“PLRA”) amendments to § 1915 require that all prisoners who proceed IFP to pay the
15 entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 83–84 (2016);
16 Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether their
17 action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281
18 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).
19 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment
20 of fees to file an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and demonstrates
21 an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In
22 support of this affidavit, the PLRA also requires prisoners to submit a “certified copy of
23 the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period
24 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v.
25

26
2 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $52. See
27 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff.
Dec. 1, 2021)). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed
28
1 King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the
2 Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account
3 for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six
4 months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C.
5 § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then
6 collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any
7 month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until
8 the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 84.
9 In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a certified prison certificate
10 issued by Otay Mesa Detention Center which attests as to his trust account activity pursuant
11 to Section 1915(a)(2) and this district’s Civil Local Rule 3.2. See ECF No. 3 at 3; Andrews,
12 398 F.3d at 1119. This certificate indicates Plaintiff maintained an available balance of
13 $12.76 at the time of filing, has an average monthly balance of $25.00, and an average of
14 $30.00 in monthly deposits. (See ECF No. 3 at 4.) Therefore, the Court GRANTS the
15 motion and assesses an initial partial filing fee of $6.00, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
16 The remaining balance of the $350 total fee owed in this case must be collected by the Otay
17 Mesa Detention Center or any subsequent agency having custody of Plaintiff and
18 forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth
19 in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
20 II. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and § 1915A(b)
21 A. Standard of Review
22 The PLRA obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding
23 IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and]
24 accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the
25 terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as
26 soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), (h), § 1915A(a)–(c).
27 Under these provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any
28 portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek
1 damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b);
2 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes
3 v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
4 All complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
5 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are
6 not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
7 mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
8 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Determining whether
9 a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires
10 the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere
11 possibility of misconduct” falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; see also
12 Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
13 “When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
14 veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”
15 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
16 (“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all
17 allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the
18 plaintiff.”); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that
19 § 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). On the
20 other hand, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of
21 the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
22 550 U.S. at 555).
23 In addition, the court “ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly
24 in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the
25 benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing
26 Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)). However, it may not “supply
27 essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of Regents of the
28 University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
1 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations
2 In his Complaint, Plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction pursuant to Bivens.
3 (Compl. ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that on August 4, 2021, while transporting him,
4 the U.S. Marshals used metal shackles on his ankles. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff states that he
5 informed the U.S. Marshals that he had a metal plate in his right ankle and requested they
6 use plastic shackles instead, but the Marshals refused. (Id.) As a result of using the metal
7 ankle shackles, Plaintiff alleges he suffered “severe nerve damage” to his right ankle. (Id.)
8 at 5, 13. He seeks $2,000,000 in damages. (Id. at 5.)
9 C. Bivens
10 “In Bivens, the Supreme Court ‘recognized for the first time an implied right of
11 action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen’s
12 constitutional rights.’” Vega v. United States, 881 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting
13 Hernandez v. Mesa, 137 S. Ct. 2003, 2006 (2017)). “In the limited settings where Bivens
14 does apply, the implied cause of action is the ‘federal analog to suits brought against state
15 officials under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675–76 (quoting
16 Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254 n.2 (2006)). Thus, to state a Bivens claim for
17 damages, the plaintiff must allege facts showing that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution
18 or laws of the United States was violated,3 and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed
19

20
21 3 The Supreme Court has cautioned against expanding Bivens’ implied right of action into new contexts
beyond those already recognized. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017). Although Bivens applies
22 to alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
by federal agents, see Bivens, 403 U.S. at 391, and to inadequate medical care claims alleged by a federal
23 inmate’s decedents under the Eighth Amendment, see Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), it remains
unclear whether a Bivens cause action may be pursued by a federal pretrial detainee alleging excessive
24
force. See e.g., Williams v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. CV 19-00081 JMS-KJM, 2019 WL 2518444, at
25 *2 (D. Haw. June 18, 2019) (assuming on screening that Bivens applies to pretrial detainee’s excessive
force and unconstitutional conditions of confinement claims). The Court will assume such a claim may be
26 actionable, and that Plaintiff is not seeking to extend a Bivens remedy “to any new context or new category
of defendants,” Corr. Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 68 (2001)‒‒but it does so for initial
27 screening purposes only. See Self v. Warden, MCC, 2019 WL 497731, at *4 & n.4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2019)
(assuming on screening that Bivens applies to pretrial detainee medical care claims); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
28
1 by a federal actor. Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991).
2 To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold the U.S. Marshals Service liable for damages
3 for the actions of unidentified individual officers, he fails to state a plausible claim for
4 relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. A Bivens action may only be brought against a federal
5 official in his or her individual capacity. See Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355
6 (9th Cir. 1987). A Bivens claim cannot stand against the United States, or any of its
7 departments, offices, or agencies. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). “[T[he
8 purpose of Bivens is to deter the officer,” not the agency. Id. at 485. Indeed, the Supreme
9 Court has held that “[a]n extension of Bivens to agencies of the Federal Government is not
10 supported by the logic of Bivens itself.” Id. at 486.
11 Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges constitutional violations by the
12 U.S. Marshals, the only named Defendant, his Complaint also fails to state a claim upon
13 which Bivens relief may be granted and must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
14 § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b)(1). See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; Rhodes, 621 F.3d at 1004.
15 D. Leave to Amend
16 In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants him leave to amend his pleading
17 in order to address the deficiencies of pleading identified and to name the individual
18 correctional officers he seeks to hold liable.4 See Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039
19 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to
20
21
contained sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that [wa]s plausible on its
22 face.”) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

23 4 “A plaintiff may refer to unknown defendants as Defendant John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and
so on, but he must allege specific facts showing how each particular doe defendant violated his rights.”
24
Cuda v. Employees/Contractors/Agents at or OCCC, 2019 WL 2062945, at *3–4 (D. Haw. May 9, 2019).
25 He must also identify each person by name if he intends to rely upon and eventually direct the U.S. Marshal
to effect service of process on his behalf. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); S.D. Cal. CivLR
26 4.1(c); Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (in order to properly effect service under
Rule 4 in an IFP case, the plaintiff is required to “furnish the information necessary to identify the
27 defendant.”); Finefeuiaki v. Maui Cmty. Corr. Ctr. Staff & Affiliates, 2018 WL 3580764, at *6 (D. Haw.
July 25, 2018) (noting that “[a]s a practical matter, the United States Marshal cannot serve a summons
28
1 amend [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)] unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the
2 deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’”) (quoting Akhtar v.
3 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012)).
4 III. Conclusion and Order
5 For the reasons discussed, the Court:
6 1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3);
7 2) ORDERS the Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, or their designee, to
8 collect from Plaintiff’s trust account the $6.00 initial filing fee assessed, if those funds are
9 available at the time this Order is executed, and to forward whatever balance remains of
10 the full $350 owed in monthly payments in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of
11 the preceding month’s income to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s
12 account exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE
13 CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS
14 ACTION.
15 3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Warden,
16 Otay Mesa Detention Center, 7488 Calzada De La Fuente, San Diego, CA 92231.
17 4) DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety for failing to state a claim
18 upon which Bivens relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and
19 § 1915A(b).
20 5) GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, on or before April
21 11, 2022, which cures the deficiencies of pleading noted. Plaintiff’s amended complaint
22 must be complete by itself without reference to his previous pleading. Defendants not
23 named and any claim not re-alleged in his amended complaint will be considered waived.
24 See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc., 896 F.2d at 1546; Lacey v. Maricopa
25 Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend
26 which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not
27 repled”).
28 If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on or before April 11, 2022, the Court
1 || will dismiss this civil action without a further order, based both on his failure to state a
2 || claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b)
3 his failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment. See
4 || Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Ifa plaintiff does not take advantage
5 ||of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the
6 || complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 /
9 || DATED: February 24, 2022 (pil A (Lyphaa. 6
10 United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10085331. Public record. Not legal advice.