Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02339/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02339-0/pdf.json

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

---

jgpt&

1

OCT 25 2016

2

CLERK US DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

■JW deputy

3

BY

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MAURO PADILLA,

CDCR #F-55326,

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02339-BEN-PCL

12 ORDER: Plaintiff,

13

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 2]

vs. 14

15

SCOTT KERNAN, etal.

16

Defendants. AND

17

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILING TO PAY FILING FEES OR

MOVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 MAURO PADILLA (“Plaintiff’), currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison

(“CEN”) in Imperial, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims the Secretary ofthe California Department

ofCorrections and Rehabilitation and eight CEN officials denied his right to free exercise

ofreligion in violation ofthe First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well

25

26

27

28

l

3:16-cv-02339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 3 Filed 10/25/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
1 as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) when they

refused to provide him kosher meals between March 2015 and May 2016. (ECF No. 1 at

3-7.) Plaintiffseeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as nominal, compensatory,

and punitive damages. (Id. at 8-9.)

Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court ofthe

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 The action may proceed despite a plaintiffs 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 who is 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); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185

(9th Cir. 2015), and regardless ofwhether 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 all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment

offees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and

demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th

Cir. 2015). In support ofthis affidavit, prisoners must also submit a “certified copy of

the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for ... the 6-month period

immediately preceding the filing ofthe 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 in the

2

3

4

5 I.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 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 ofFees, 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.

i

27

28

2

3:16-cv-02339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 3 Filed 10/25/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
1 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 ofthe prisoner then

collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% ofthe preceding month’s income, in any

month in which his account exceeds $10, and 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.

Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action, nor has he

filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Therefore, his

case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has also filed a boilerplate Motion for Appointment ofCounsel pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, enacted as part ofthe Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”). Plaintiff

claims such an appointment would serve the interests ofjustice in ensuring his “one and

only opportunity to litigate before this court under the AEDPA [Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act].” (ECF No. 2 at 4.)

Section 3 006A provides counsel as a matter ofright to most indigent criminal

defendants, from pre-trial proceedings through appeal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(l), (c)

(emphasis added); United States v. Brown, 785 F.3d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir. 2015). In

addition, the statute authorizes courts to appoint counsel for federal habeas petitioners

when “the interests ofjustice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(b); Luna v. Kernan,

784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015). This is not a criminal case and Plaintiffhas not filed a

habeas corpus petition, therefore neither the AEDPA nor 18 U.S.C. § 3006A apply.

Moreover, the Constitution provides no right to the appointment of counsel in a

civil case. Lassiter v. Dept. ofSoc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Palmer v. Valdez, 560

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts

are granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons in IFP cases, but this

discretion is exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections

Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 II.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

3:16-cv-02339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 3 Filed 10/25/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
1 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of

both the ‘likelihood ofsuccess on the merits and the ability ofthe plaintiffto articulate

his claims pro se in light ofthe complexity ofthe legal issues involved.’ Neither ofthese

issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.”

Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986)).

2

3

4

5

6

Here, even liberally construing Plaintiffs request under § 1915(e)(1), the

appointment of counsel is unwarranted. First, as explained above, Plaintiffhas not filed a

Motion to Proceed IFP, along with a certified copy of his prison trust account activity for

the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing ofthe Complaint or any affidavit

sufficient to show he is indigent. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) & (b). Second, while the

Court has yet to conduct its initial screening ofPlaintiffs Complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a preliminary review of his pleading does not indicate Plaintiffs

inability to articulate the factual bases for his claims, or his likelihood ofsuccess ofthe

merits at this initial stage ofthe proceedings.2 Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; Terrell, 935 F.2d

at 1017.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

2 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further by either prepaying the full

$400 civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his

Complaint will be screened before service and may be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless ofwhether he pays or is obligated

to pay filing fees. See 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 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim,

or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621

F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity

or officer or employee of a governmental entity”). The Court notes that Plaintiff admits to

having filed a state habeas corpus action in Imperial County Superior Court, EHC02041,

in May 2016, which appears to address the same denial of kosher meals at issue in this

case. See ECF No. 1 at 6 ^ 30 & Exs. Q, S, T; see also Furnace v. Giurbino, No. 13-17620,

2016 WL 5439760 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2016) (affirming district court’s dismissal of § 1983

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

3:16-CV-02339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 3 Filed 10/25/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
1 III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court:

(1) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment ofCounsel [ECF No. 2];

(2) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to pay the

$400 civil filing and administrative fee or submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a);

(3) GRANTS Plaintiffforty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is

filed to re-open this case by: (a) prepaying the entire $400 civil filing and administrative

fee in full; or (b) completing and filing a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a

certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of

his Complaint as is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CivLR 3.2(b); and

(4) DIRECTS the Clerk ofthe Court to provide Plaintiffwith this Court’s

approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support ofMotion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis.” IfPlaintifffails to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee or complete and

submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, his case will remain

dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)’s fee

requirements and without further Order ofthe Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 Dated: October2016

21

Benitez

United States District Judge

/Hon.

22

23

24

25

26

27

complaint filed by prisoner who alleged same “primary right” in previous state habeas

petition on grounds of claim preclusion). 28

' 5

3:16-cv-02339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 3 Filed 10/25/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5