Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01623/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01623-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

, 8511 1 11cv1623 IEG (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RENTZ, II,

CDCR #J-41030,

Civil No. 11cv1623 IEG (NLS)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,

IMPOSING NO PARTIAL FILING

FEE, GARNISHING $350 BALANCE

FROM PRISONER’S TRUST

ACCOUNT [ECF No. 2]; 

(2) DISMISSING FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENT CLAIMS FOR

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM;

AND

(3) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL

TO EFFECT SERVICE OF

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) & 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d)

vs.

T. BOREN, R&R Sergeant,

Defendant.

David Rentz (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison,

and proceeding pro se, has submitted a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has

filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No.

2].

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01623-MMA-NLS Document 4 Filed 08/05/11 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

, 8511 2 11cv1623 IEG (NLS)

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP [ECF NO. 2]

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

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee

only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, prisoners granted leave to

proceed IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether their

action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), and that he has attached a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. Plaintiff’s trust account statement shows that

he has no available funds from which to pay filing fees at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).

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). However, the entire $350 balance of the

filing fee mandated shall be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the

installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

II. INITIAL SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1)

Notwithstanding IFP status or the payment of any partial filing fee, the Court must subject

each civil action commenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order

the sua sponte dismissal of any case it finds “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte

dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim). 

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, the Court has a duty

to liberally construe a pro se’s pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839

Case 3:11-cv-01623-MMA-NLS Document 4 Filed 08/05/11 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

, 8511 3 11cv1623 IEG (NLS)

F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), which is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 

A. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims

Plaintiff alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when

prison officials confiscated his property. (See Compl. at 4.) Where an inmate alleges the

deprivation of a liberty or property interest caused by the unauthorized negligent or intentional

action of a prison official, the prisoner cannot state a constitutional claim where the state

provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 129-32

(1990); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). The California Tort Claims Act

(“CTCA”) provides an adequate post-deprivation state remedy for the random and unauthorized

taking of property. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, Plaintiff has

an adequate state post-deprivation remedy and his claims relating to the destruction of his

property are not cognizable in this § 1983 action, and must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1).

B. First Amendment Freedom of Religion claims

As to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are

sufficiently pleaded to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and

1915A(b). Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203

F.3d at 1126-27; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all

process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order

that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized

to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). 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 [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm,

481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01623-MMA-NLS Document 4 Filed 08/05/11 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

, 8511 4 11cv1623 IEG (NLS)

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2] is

GRANTED. 

2. The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his

designee, shall collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee

owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER

ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Matthew Cate,

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515 S Street, Suite 502,

Sacramento, California 95814.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claims are DISMISSED without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b) for failing to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. 

5. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] upon the

Defendants and shall and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for

each Defendant. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order

and a certified copy of his Complaint and the summons for purposes of serving the Defendants.

Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285 as completely

and accurately as possible, and to return it to the United States Marshal according to the

instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Thereafter, the

U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon the Defendants as directed

by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

Case 3:11-cv-01623-MMA-NLS Document 4 Filed 08/05/11 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

, 8511 5 11cv1623 IEG (NLS)

6. Plaintiff shall serve upon the Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be

filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy

of any document was served on the Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of

service. Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails

to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2011

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-01623-MMA-NLS Document 4 Filed 08/05/11 Page 5 of 5