Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02235/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02235-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\09cv2235-IFP-csl&serve.wpd -1- 09cv2235 WQH (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN J. NORMAN,

CDCR #V-69696,

Civil No. 09-2235 WQH (NLS)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING 

NO INITIAL PARTIAL FILING

FEE AND GARNISHING BALANCE

FROM PRISONER’S TRUST

ACCOUNT PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

[Doc. No. 2];

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 3] 

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.

LARRY SMALL, Warden; S. RITTER,

Correctional Officer; W. NEWMAN,

Correctional Sgt.; B.C. RIES, Correctional

Lieutenant; A. BELTRAN, Correctional

Lieutenant; D. BELL, Correctional Appeals

Coordinator; N. GRANNIS, Correctional

Appeals Branch Officer; 

C. ESPITIA, Appeals Coordinator,

Defendants.

Darren J. Norman (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State

Prison (“CAL”) in Calipatria, California, and proceeding in pro se, has filed a civil rights

Case 3:09-cv-02235-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/24/09 Page 1 of 7
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\09cv2235-IFP-csl&serve.wpd -2- 09cv2235 WQH (NLS)

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that various CAL correctional officials

sexually harassed him and violated his rights to freedom of religion by forcing him to submit to

a body cavity search in the presence of female officers in July 2008. (Compl. at 4.) Plaintiff

further claims Defendants denied him due process during a prison disciplinary proceeding

related to the incident and retaliated against him by refusing to process his administrative

grievances. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as well and general and punitive

damages. (Id. at 8.) 

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead,

he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

[Doc. No. 2], as well as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 3].

I.

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

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 party’s failure to pay only if the party is

granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493

F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

However, a prisoner granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in

installments, regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a

prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account

statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,

1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess an initial

payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or

(b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater,

unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The

Case 3:09-cv-02235-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/24/09 Page 2 of 7
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\09cv2235-IFP-csl&serve.wpd -3- 09cv2235 WQH (NLS)

institution having custody of the prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20%

of the preceding month’s income, in any month in which the prisoner’s account exceeds $10, and

forward those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2).

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

§ 1915(a)(1), and 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. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. However, Plaintiff’s

trust account statement shows he has insufficient funds with which to pay any initial partial

filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be

prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment for the

reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay [an] initial partial filing

fee.”); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve”

preventing dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP case based solely on a “failure to pay ... due to the lack

of funds available.”). 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. 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 fees 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.

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil

action. “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution

Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus, federal

courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United

States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

However, “[t]itle 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits the district court, in its discretion, to

‘request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.’” Solis v. County of Los

Angeles, 514 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)); see also Agyeman

Case 3:09-cv-02235-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/24/09 Page 3 of 7
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\09cv2235-IFP-csl&serve.wpd -4- 09cv2235 WQH (NLS)

v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Such discretion may be exercised

upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “To show exceptional

circumstances the litigant must demonstrate the likelihood of success and complexity of the legal

issues involved.” Burns, 883 F.2d at 823 (citation omitted); Hedges, 32 F.3d at 1363; Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). Neither the likelihood of success nor the

complexity of the case are dispositive; both must be considered. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017;

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Here, it appears that at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his

case, the legal issues involved, and is able to adequately articulate the factual basis of his claims.

Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

[Doc. No. 3] without prejudice at this time. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.

1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

III.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) AND 1915A

The PLRA also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding

IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused

of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as

practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these

provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof,

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who

are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-

27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000)

(§ 1915A); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing

§ 1915A). 

“[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

Case 3:09-cv-02235-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/24/09 Page 4 of 7
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

1

 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).

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\09cv2235-IFP-csl&serve.wpd -5- 09cv2235 WQH (NLS)

plaintiff.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In addition, the Court’s

duty to liberally construe a pro se’s pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept.,

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

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). However, in giving liberal interpretation to a

pro se civil rights complaint, the court may not “supply essential elements of claims that were

not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

Cir. 1982). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations

are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id.

 As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations sufficient to survive the sua

sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).1

 See Lopez, 203 F.3d at

1126-27. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf.

See 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.”). 

IV.

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) [Doc. No. 2]

is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED;

3. The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or

his designee, is ordered to collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the

civil filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments in an amount equal to twenty

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

Case 3:09-cv-02235-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/24/09 Page 5 of 7
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\09cv2235-IFP-csl&serve.wpd -6- 09cv2235 WQH (NLS)

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.

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

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 942883,

Sacramento, California 94283-0001.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

5. The Clerk shall issue a summons upon Defendants, and forward it to Plaintiff

along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. In addition, the Clerk

shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order, and certified copies of his Complaint

and the summons for purposes of serving each Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,”

Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and to

return them 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 each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on each 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).

6. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to the Complaint within the time

provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to reply to

any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under

section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face

on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,”

Defendants are required to respond). 

7. Plaintiff shall serve upon 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

Case 3:09-cv-02235-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/24/09 Page 6 of 7
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\09cv2235-IFP-csl&serve.wpd -7- 09cv2235 WQH (NLS)

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 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.

DATED: November 24, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02235-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/24/09 Page 7 of 7