Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00327/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00327-0/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\Chmb_Sammartino\Vincent Chuang 2010-2011\Pro SE\New Folder\11cv0327-grt IFP & dsm.wpd, 52411 1 11cv327 JlS (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAWAN WILLIAMS, et al.,

CDCR #F-91284,

Civil No. 11cv0327 JLS (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, IMPOSING NO

INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE,

GARNISHING $350.00 BALANCE

FROM PRISONER’S TRUST

ACCOUNT [ECF No. 3]; 

(2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS

WILLIS, NORMAN, ABEL,

JEFFER, HILL, TOBBS, CARRELL

AND THOMPSON; and

(3) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2) AND 1915A(b);

vs.

W.J. PRICE; G. JANDA;

L. SCOTT McEWEN; D. FOSTON;

Defendants.

Kawan Williams, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison located

in Calipatria, California, and proceeding pro se, have submitted a civil action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. There are several other Plaintiffs listed in the caption but none of these parties

have signed the Complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff Williams is the only Plaintiff to have filed

a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) ECF No. 3].

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/24/11 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\Chmb_Sammartino\Vincent Chuang 2010-2011\Pro SE\New Folder\11cv0327-grt IFP & dsm.wpd, 52411 2 11cv327 JlS (CAB)

I.

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP [ECF No. 3]

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); 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

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 no available funds from which to pay filing fees at this

time. 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 the 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

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/24/11 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\Chmb_Sammartino\Vincent Chuang 2010-2011\Pro SE\New Folder\11cv0327-grt IFP & dsm.wpd, 52411 3 11cv327 JlS (CAB)

available to him when payment is ordered.”). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion

to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 3] 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.

MULTIPLE PLAINTIFFS

As an initial matter, Plaintiff Williams purports to also bring this action on behalf of

Rachee Willis, Darren Norman, Craig V. Abel, Donnell Jeffer, Rance Hill, Tobias Tobbs, J.R.

Ewing Carrell and Betrand Thompson. However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has

no authority to represent the legal interest of any other party. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d

1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th

Cir. 1987); see also FED.R.CIV.P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall

be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s original name, or if the party is not

represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party.”). Here, none of the named Plaintiffs,

with the exception of Plaintiff Williams, has signed the Complaint or filed their own Motion to

Proceed IFP. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Rachee Willis, Darren Norman,

Craig V. Abel, Donnell Jeffer, Rance Hill, Tobias Tobbs, J.R. Ewing Carrell and Betrand

Thompson from this action. 

III.

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 fees, 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); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir.

2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/24/11 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\Chmb_Sammartino\Vincent Chuang 2010-2011\Pro SE\New Folder\11cv0327-grt IFP & dsm.wpd, 52411 4 11cv327 JlS (CAB)

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that

fails to state a claim). 

Before its amendment by the PLRA, former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. However, as

amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to

the IFP provisions of section 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing

the U.S. Marshal to effect service pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3). See Calhoun, 254 F.3d at

845; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604-05 (6th Cir.

1997) (stating that sua sponte screening pursuant to § 1915 should occur “before service of

process is made on the opposing parties”).

“[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); Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194

(noting that § 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”);

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121. 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 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). In giving liberal interpretation to a pro se civil rights complaint, however, 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).

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person

acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived

the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S.Ct. 2117, 2122

(2004); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/24/11 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

K:\COMMON\Chmb_Sammartino\Vincent Chuang 2010-2011\Pro SE\New Folder\11cv0327-grt IFP & dsm.wpd, 52411 5 11cv327 JlS (CAB)

A. First Amendment claims

First, Plaintiff alleges, in very general terms, that prison officials at Calipatria State Prison

denied “religious services for 6 weeks.” (Compl. at 3.) “The right to exercise religious

practices and beliefs does not terminate at the prison door.” McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196,

197 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). In order to implicate the Free Exercise Clause of the First

Amendment, the Plaintiff must show that their belief is “sincerely held” and “rooted in religious

belief.” See Shakur v. Schiro, 514 F.3d 878, 884 (citing Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330, 333 (9th

Cir. 1994). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations contain no specific facts relating to his personal

religious beliefs. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege claims sufficient

to state a claim pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. 

B. Equal Protection

In addition, Plaintiff appears to claim that prison officials have also violated his right to

equal protection under the law. The “Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

commands that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws,’ which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated

alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). In order to

state a claim under § 1983 alleging violations of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, Plaintiff must allege facts which demonstrate that he is a member of a protected

class. See Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 323 (1980) (indigents); see also City of Cleburne v.

Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440-41 (1985) (listing suspect classes). In this matter,

Plaintiff has not sufficiently plead that he is a member of a protected class nor has he plead any

facts to demonstrate that Defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him

based upon his membership in a protected class. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194

(9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999). Moreover, Plaintiff has also failed to allege

sufficient facts which may prove invidious discriminatory intent. Village of Arlington Heights

v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/24/11 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\Chmb_Sammartino\Vincent Chuang 2010-2011\Pro SE\New Folder\11cv0327-grt IFP & dsm.wpd, 52411 6 11cv327 JlS (CAB)

Accordingly, the Court must DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint for all the reasons set forth

above but will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to amend his Complaint to correct the

deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs Rachee Willis, Darren Norman, Craig Abel, Donnell Jeffer, Rance Hill,

Tobias Tobbs, J.R. Ewing Carrell, and Betrand Thompson are DISMISSED from this action.

2. Plaintiff William’s ’s Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF

No. 3] is GRANTED. 

3. 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.

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, 1515 S Street, Suite 502,

Sacramento, California 95814.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

5. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty five (45) days leave

from the date this Order is “Filed” in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all

the deficiencies of pleading noted above. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in

itself without reference to the superseded pleading. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 15.1. Defendants

not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been

waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, if Plaintiff’s Amended

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/24/11 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\Chmb_Sammartino\Vincent Chuang 2010-2011\Pro SE\New Folder\11cv0327-grt IFP & dsm.wpd, 52411 7 11cv327 JlS (CAB)

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it may be dismissed without

further leave to amend and may hereafter be counted as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996). 

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a court approved form § 1983 complaint to

Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 24, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 05/24/11 Page 7 of 7