Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01934/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01934-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERRY JOHNS,

CDCR # C-38404 Civil

No. 13cv1934 MMA (KSC)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS;

[Doc. No. 2]

(2) DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)

vs.

G.J. JANDA; D. HJERPE;

J. ZAMORA,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison located in

Calipatria, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Doc. No. 2. 

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

1 13cv1934 MMA (KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-01934-MMA-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d

1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Prisoners granted leave to proceed IFP however, remain

obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether the action is

ultimately dismissed for any reason. 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 insufficient funds from which to pay an initial partial

filing fee.

Accordingly, 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 Court

further orders the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to garnish the entire $350 balance of the filing fees owed in this

case, collect 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. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915

also obligate 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)(B) and 1915A(b). Under these

provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any prisoner civil action and all other IFP

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 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

To state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) the conduct he

2 13cv1934 MMA (KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-01934-MMA-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 4
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

complains of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that

conduct violated a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170, 1184 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing West

v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).

Here, the first page of Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates an intent to sue Defendants

Janda, Hjerpe and Zamora, who are all purported to be prison officials at Calipatria State

Prison, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the remaining pages filed by Plaintiff

only contain pages for a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and exhibits pertaining to

Plaintiff’s disciplinary action while incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. The papers

filed by Plaintiff, other than the first page, fail to address any claims against Defendants

Janda, Hjerpe or Zamora or any allegations relating to Plaintiff’s conditions of

confinement. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the entire action for failing to state a

claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint but he must

present factual allegations relating to alleged constitutional violations arising from his

incarceration at Calipatria State Prison.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing,

1. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2]. 

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 Jeffrey

3 13cv1934 MMA (KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-01934-MMA-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of 4
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

Beard, Ph.D., Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515

S Street, Suite 502, Sacramento, California 95814.

4. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A(b). However, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff

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 realleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of a Court approved

civil rights complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 10, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

4 13cv1934 MMA (KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-01934-MMA-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/10/13 Page 4 of 4