The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JEREMY RYAN, Case No.: 26-CV-1517 TWR (MMP)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER (1) GRANTING
13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
14 UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR
DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
15 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDER
CALIFORNIA, in his or her individual
DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
16 and official capacities; DEPUTY U.S.
TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY, AND
MARSHALS DOES 1–20, in their
17 (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
individual capacities; and DOES 21–40,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
18
Defendants. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
19 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
20
21 (ECF Nos. 1, 11)
22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Jeremy Ryan’s Motion for Reconsideration of
23 Order Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Order Denying Motion for
24 Leave to File Electronically (“Mot.,” ECF No. 11). As noted in the Court’s April 22, 2026
25 Order (1) Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Electronically,
26 and (2) Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff has
27 now met his burden of demonstrating that payment of the $405 filing fee will result in his
28 inability to afford the “necessities of life.” (See ECF No. 8 at 2 (quoting Escobedo v.
1 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (2015)).) The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s
2 Motion to the extent he seeks leave to proceed without paying the filing fee.
3 Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of his renewed Motion for Leave to File
4 Electronically (ECF No. 4), which the Court had denied because, “[p]ending appeal, no
5 further filings are required of Plaintiff before this Court in the foreseeable future.” (See
6 ECF No. 8 at 2.) In light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s appeal and Plaintiff’s showing that
7 he has the requisite equipment and software to file electronically, (see ECF No. 4); see also
8 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S.D. of Cal., CM/ECF Information, General Info, https://www.casd.
9 uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx#undefined1 (last visited Mar. 5, 2026), the Court also GRANTS
10 Plaintiff’s Motion to the extent he seeks leave to file electronically. The Court reminds
11 Plaintiff that any abuse of the CM/ECF system may result in termination of his electronic
12 filing privileges.
13 Finally, the Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
14 § 1915(a) and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on
15 which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
16 from relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th
17 Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”);
18 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C.
19 § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis
20 complaint that fails to state a claim”). As amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
21 (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed
22 pursuant to the in forma pauperis provisions of Section 1915 make and rule on its own
23 motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect service pursuant to Federal Rule
24 of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); Navarette v. Pioneer Med. Ctr.,
25 No. 12-cv-0629-WQH (DHB), 2013 WL 139925, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2013).
26 “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious
27 suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907
28 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014). While Federal “Rule [of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6) does not
1 countenance . . . dismissals based on a judge’s disbelief of a complaint’s factual
2 allegations[,] . . . Section 1915([e)(2]) . . . accords judges not only the authority to dismiss
3 a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce
4 the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
5 contentions are clearly baseless,” including “claims describing fantastic or delusional
6 scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989). A pleading is “factual[ly]
7 frivolous[]” if “the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,
8 whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton
9 v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
10 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court concludes that dismissal is
11 warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). First, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to
12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires Plaintiff to provide “a short and plain
13 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.
14 8(a)(2). While Plaintiff’s two-page Complaint is “short and plain,” (see generally ECF No.
15 1 (“Compl.”)), “[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of
16 the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders
17 naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
18 678 (2009) (third alteration in original) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
19 555, 557 (2007)). Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to “unconstitutional
20 treatment”—including “prolonged shackling and extreme overcrowding”—“during federal
21 pretrial transport and court-holding.” (See Compl. at 1.) While Plaintiff’s Complaint
22 alleges one of the dates in question, (see id. at 2), he fails to include additional details such
23 as the means of shackling and transport, how many other detainees were present, how many
24 detainees were placed in a holding cell, how long detainees were subject to transportation
25 and holding, and other facts that would “give fair notice and to enable the opposing party
26 to defend itself effectively.” See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).
27 Further, and perhaps more problematically, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited
28 jurisdiction[,]” and “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction,
1 and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”
2 Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting
3 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Because Plaintiff
4 is bringing constitutional claims against federal officials, he appears to be proceeding under
5 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 392
6 (1971). The Supreme Court has recognized three causes of action under Bivens for
7 unreasonable searches and seizures committed by federal officers in violation of the Fourth
8 Amendment, see id. at 397; violations of Due Process, such as gender discrimination, under
9 the Fifth Amendment, see Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 248–49 (1979); and failure to
10 provide adequate medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and
11 Unusual Punishments Clause, see Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 19 (1980). See Ziglar v.
12 Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 130–31 (2017). Over the past forty years, the Supreme Court “has
13 ‘consistently refused to extend Bivens to any new context or new category of defendants.’”
14 See id. at 135 (quoting Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 68 (2001)).
15 Plaintiff’s causes of action do not appear to fit into any of the three categories of
16 causes of action recognized by the Supreme Court,1 and “a court may not fashion a Bivens
17
18
1 Specifically, Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force to pretrial detainees arise under the Fourteenth
19 Amendment, see Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
535–39 (1979)), and claims of excessive force as an inmate are properly brought under the Eighth
20
Amendment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Even if Plaintiff’s claims were properly
21 asserted under Bivens, Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim because “a pretrial detainee can . . . prevail
on an excessive force claim by showing that the actions are not ‘rationally related to a legitimate
22 nonpunitive governmental purpose’ or that the actions ‘appear excessive in relation to that purpose.’”
Venegas v. Bianco, No. 519CV01557JLSSHK, 2020 WL 4334118, at *18 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020) (first
23 quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 561; then quoting Kinglsey v. Hendickson, 576 U.S. 389, 298 (2015)). Under
this standard, courts have routinely rejected claims of the type Plaintiff alleges here. See, e.g., Romine v.
24
Cnty. of Clark, 225 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision) (“The district court properly
25 determined that [the pretrial detainee plaintiff]’s constitutional rights were not violated as a result of his
temporary[, i.e., two-day,] confinement in the holding cells of the Clark County Detention Center.” (citing
26 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 n.21 (1979)); Venegas, 2020 WL 4334118 at *18–19 & n.10 (dismissing
upon sua sponte screening claims asserted by pro se prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis regarding
27 cross chaining of pretrial detainees during transport and unsanitary holding cells); Schilling v. TransCor
Am., LLC, No. C 08-941 SI, 2012 WL 3257659, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012) (“The Court finds that use
28
1 remedy if Congress already has provided, or has authorized the Executive to provide, ‘an
2 alternative remedial structure.’” Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 493, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1804,
3 213 L. Ed. 2d 54 (2022) (quoting Ziglar, 582 U. S., at 137) (citing Schweiker v. Chilicky,
4 487 U.S. 412, 425 (1988)). Here, the Director of the United States Marshals Service is
5 statutorily required to “supervise and direct the United States Marshals Service in the
6 performance of its duties,” 28 U.S.C. § 561(g), which, according to regulations, specifically
7 include the “[i]nvestigation of alleged improper conduct on the part of U.S. Marshals
8 Service personnel.” 28 C.F.R. § 0.111(n). Despite Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that
9 “[n]o administrative remedy was actually available to Plaintiff,” (see Compl. at 2), an
10 internet search for “marshal complaint form” links to an online form entitled “Complaint
11 Regarding United States Marshals Service (USMS) Personnel or Programs.” See
12 https://www.usmarshals.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/complaint-form_0_0.pdf.
13 Plaintiff also fails to allege that he ever requested and was denied a complaint form by the
14 United States Marshals Service. (See generally Compl.) “So long as Congress or the
15 Executive has created a remedial process that it finds sufficient to secure an adequate level
16 of deterrence, the courts cannot second-guess that calibration by superimposing a Bivens
17 remedy.” Egbert, 596 U.S. at 498.
18 For all these reasons, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s
19 Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff MAY FILE an
20 amended complaint curing the above-identified deficiencies within twenty-one (21) days
21 of the date of this Order. Should Plaintiff fail timely to file an amended complaint, the
22 Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on failure to state a
23 claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and for
24 failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment. See Lira v.
25
26
prisoners outside of secure facilities, is not an unconstitutional deprivation under the Eighth
27 Amendment.”); United States v. Arnett, No. CR-F-95-5287 OWW, 2006 WL 2038533, at *5 (E.D. Cal.
July 18, 2006) (“[The plaintiff] has no constitutional basis for complaining about the length of confinement
28
1 || Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of
2 ||the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the
3 complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 ||Dated: June 18, 2026 —— (2
6 [5D □□ (are
7 Honorable Todd W. Robinson
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28