Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01030/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01030-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZACHARY HARMON,

CDCR #AX-3071,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT BROWN; FABRICE 

HADJADJ; DANIEL PARAMO; 

J. DAVIES; P. COVELLOS; and 

L. ESHELMAN,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

Zachary Harmon, proceeding pro se and incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, has filed a civil rights Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). Harmon claims RJD officials violated his right 

to free exercise of his Buddhist faith under the First Amendment, imposed a substantial 

burden on the exercise of that faith in violation of the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and denied him equal protection of the law 

under the Fourteenth Amendment “from 2016 through 2018.” Id. at 16–34.

Case 3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB

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

Harmon did not prepay the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at 

the time of filing; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). 

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

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 

$400.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if he 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 “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. 

Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016), 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).

Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a 

“certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 

6-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 assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 

monthly deposits into 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 institution having 

custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the 

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

 

1

 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 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 not apply to persons granted leave to 

proceed IFP. Id.

Case 3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB

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

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

§ 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629.

In support of his IFP Motion, Harmon has submitted a copy of his CDCR Inmate 

Statement Report as well as a Prison Certificate completed by an accounting officer at RJD. 

(ECF No. 3 at 1–3). These statements show that Harmon has carried no average monthly 

balance, has had no monthly deposits to his account over the six-month period immediately 

preceding the filing of his Complaint, and had no available balance on the books at the time 

of filing. See id. Based on this accounting, no initial partial filing fee is assessed. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (“In 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 the initial partial filing fee.”).

Therefore, the Court grants Harmon’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2), declines 

to exact any initial filing fee, and directs the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to 

instead collect the entire $350 balance of the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and 

forward them to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set 

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

II. Sua Sponte Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b)

Because Harmon is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his pleading requires a preanswer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these statutes, 

the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which 

is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 

immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the 

targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” 

Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford

Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).

Case 3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB

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

“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 

1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard 

applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6)”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) requires a complaint 

“contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 

“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a contextspecific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and 

common sense.” Id. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or “unadorned, the defendantunlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.

The Court finds that Harmon’s Complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true,” to allege First Amendment free exercise, RLUIPA, and Fourteenth 

Amendment equal protection claims for relief that are “plausible on [their] face,” and 

therefore, sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).2 Id.; see Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1134, 1138 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (discussing pleading standards for prisoner’s free exercise and equal protection 

claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and RLUIPA).

Therefore, the Court will order the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon Defendants 

on Harmon’s behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and 

 

2

 Harmon 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).

Case 3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB

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

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.”).

III. Conclusion and Orders

For the reasons discussed, the Court:

1) GRANTS Harmon’s Motion for leave to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2);

2) DIRECTS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from 

Harmon’s prison trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by garnishing monthly 

payments from his account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding 

month’s income and forwarding those payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the 

amount in the account exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS 

SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 

THIS ACTION;

3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Scott 

Kernan, Secretary, CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001;

4) DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Harmon’s Complaint (ECF No. 

1) and forward it to Harmon along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each named 

Defendant. In addition, the Clerk will provide Harmon with a certified copy of this Order, 

a certified copy of his Complaint, and the summons so that he may serve Defendants. Upon 

receipt of this “IFP Package,” Harmon must complete each Form 285 as completely and 

accurately as possible, include an address where each Defendant may be served, see S.D. 

Cal. CivLR 4.1.c, and return them to the United States Marshal according to the 

instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying his IFP package;

5) ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons 

upon Defendants as directed by Harmon on the USM Form 285s provided to him. All costs 

of that service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(c)(3);

Case 3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB

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

6) ORDERS Defendants, once served, to reply to Harmon’s 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 a defendant 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), defendant is required to 

respond.); and

7) ORDERS Harmon, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to 

serve upon Defendants, or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ 

counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the 

Court’s consideration pursuant to Rule 5(b). Harmon must include with every original 

document that he seeks to file with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner 

in which a true and correct copy of that document has been served on Defendants or their 

counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 5.2. Any document received by 

the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk, or which fails to include a 

Certificate of Service upon Defendants, may be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01030-WQH-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6