Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044-12/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

15cv1044-WQH-RBM

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

TONY ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BEARD, Secretary of CDCR; D. 

PARAMO, Warden of RJDCF; et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15cv1044-WQH-RBM

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. (ECF 

No. 189).

I. BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff Tony Roberts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated 

this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants A. 

Buenrostro, R. Davis, C. Meza, A. Parker, R, Santiago, K. Seibel, and R. Solis for violation 

of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff claims that Defendants 

Meza and Buenrostro interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to submit grievances and 

complaints, searched his cell, falsified reports and disciplinary charges, and arranged for a 

prison transfer, in order to retaliate against Plaintiff for his grievances and complaints. 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 198 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

15cv1044-WQH-RBM

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

Plaintiff claims that he was sexually assaulted and labeled a snitch and a child molester by 

Defendants. Plaintiff also brings causes of action arising under California law. 

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

(ECF No. 2). 

On May 26, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 4).

On September 16, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims 

other than the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Buenrostro for sexual assault. 

(ECF No. 46). 

On September 24, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff as to 

his remaining Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Buenrostro, and as to his First 

Amendment claim for the allegedly false and retaliatory April 2, 2014 rules violation 

report. (ECF No. 136). The Court declined to grant summary judgment in favor of 

Defendants on the grounds of exhaustion. The Court remanded the case to the Magistrate 

Judge to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed material facts of whether the 

prison improperly failed to process Plaintiff’s alleged grievances on April 2, 2014; June 

23, 2014; and July 8, 2014, such that Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust would be excused. 

On November 16, 2018, the Magistrate Judge vacated the scheduled evidentiary 

hearing “[i]n light of the fact that Defendants have withdrawn their defense of exhaustion 

of administrative remedies.” ECF No. 170 at 1; see also ECF Nos. 169, 166 (noting 

withdrawal of exhaustion defense). 

On March 14, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants as to 

Plaintiff’s state law claims, and granted summary judgment for Defendants as to Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment claims against Defendants Solis, Santiago, and Seibel. (ECF No. 178). 

The Court declined to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment claims against Defendants Parker, Davis, Meza, and Buenrosto.

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 198 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

15cv1044-WQH-RBM

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

On May 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff 

made untrue statements in his motion to proceed IFP.

1

 (ECF No. 189).

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 192).

On June 25, 2019, Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. (ECF 

No. 194). 

On July 11, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss. (ECF 

No. 197).

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that dismissing this case with prejudice is appropriate pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) because Plaintiff misled the Court with respect to to his claim 

of poverty. Defendants assert that on October 21, 2014, Plaintiff received $3,000 in his 

inmate trust account from a settlement with the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, and on the same day transferred $2,000 out of his trust account. Defendants 

assert that less than six months later, on April 14, 2015, Plaintiff signed the motion to 

proceed IFP in this case, indicating that Plaintiff had not received any money from any 

other sources in the preceding twelve months. Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s omission 

of the $3,000 settlement was deliberate and in bad faith based on Plaintiff’s experience 

litigating cases pro se and IFP in federal court. 

Plaintiff contends that dismissal is unwarranted because the omission of the $3,000 

settlement was an oversight, and because the Court would still have granted IFP if Plaintiff 

had disclosed the $3,000 settlement. Plaintiff asserts that his IFP application included a 

certified copy of his trust account transactions from the preceding six months, which 

showed an average monthly balance of $158.60, average monthly deposits of $90, and a 

 

1 Defendants Buenrostro, Davis, Meza, Parker, Santiago, Seibel, and Solis move to dismiss. (ECF No. 

189 at 1). The remaining Defendants, Beard, Paramo, Sanchez, Arguilez, and Ciborowski, were never 

properly served. (ECF No. 31). 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 198 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

15cv1044-WQH-RBM

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

balance of $0 as of March 10, 2015. Plaintiff asserts that he transferred $2,000 out of his 

account the day he received the settlement in order to help his sister pay rent, not to 

intentionally mislead the Court. Plaintiff asserts that he did not personally benefit from 

transferring the $2,000 to his sister. Plaintiff asserts that he has paid every court filing fee 

he owed, except this case and two other cases. 

“[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, 

action or proceeding, civil or criminal . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 

by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner 

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(1). Prisoners must also “submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement 

(or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding 

the filing of the complaint” to be granted leave to proceed IFP. § 1915(a)(2). In Escobedo 

v. Applebees, the Court of Appeals stated,

An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that 

the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life. . . 

. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets. As 

this court has recognized, “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain 

benefits of the in forma pauperis statute.” . . . Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking 

IFP status must allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and 

certainty.”

787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (first citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 

335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), then quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th 

Cir. 1960), and then quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

The IFP statute provides that “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the allegation of poverty is untrue . . . .” § 1915(e)(2). The statute was 

amended in 1996 and previously read, “The court . . . may dismiss the case if the allegation 

of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Omnibus Consolidated 

Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; see also 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 198 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

15cv1044-WQH-RBM

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

Thomas v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir. 2002) (“Because 

the allegation of poverty was false, the suit had to be dismissed; the judge had no choice. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). The only question is whether the judge abused his discretion in 

making the dismissal with prejudice.”).

“To dismiss [a] complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), a showing of bad faith is 

required, not merely inaccuracy.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235 n.8; see also Vann v. 

Comm’r of N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., 496 F. App’x 113, 115 (2d Cir. 2012) (noting the statute 

does not “require[] dismissal for inaccuracies, misstatements, or minor misrepresentations 

made in good faith”). In Vann, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated:

Yet, although a prisoner’s misrepresentation of his or her financial assets 

might not necessarily rise to the level of an untrue allegation of poverty 

requiring dismissal in all cases, dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(A) is certainly 

appropriate where a plaintiff conceals or misrepresents his or her financial 

assets or history in bad faith to obtain in forma pauperis status. . . . Bad faith 

in this context includes deliberate concealment of income in order to gain 

access to a court without prepayment of filing fees. . . . To determine whether 

a plaintiff has acted in bad faith a court may consider a plaintiff’s familiarity 

with the in forma pauperis system and history of litigation.

496 F. App’x at 115; see also Salat v. Wilson, No. 216CV03018APGPAL, 2017 WL 

4269958, at *2, adopted by No. 216CV03018APGPAL, 2017 WL 5615572 (D. Nev. Nov. 

21, 2017) (citing Vann, 469 F. App’x at 115). In Vann, the court determined that it was 

proper to dismiss the claims of a pro se inmate, an experienced litigant familiar with IFP 

who had filed at least five IFP actions against the government in federal court and omitted

over $2,000 in account deposits. 496 F. App’x at 115–16; see also Steshenko v. Gayrard, 

No. 13-CV-03400-LHK, 2015 WL 1503651, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2015) (“Where the 

applicant has knowingly provided inaccurate information on his or her IFP application, the 

dismissal may be with prejudice.”) (citing Thomas, 288 F.3d at 306; Attwood v. Singletary, 

105 F.3d 610, 612–13 (11th Cir. 1997); Romesburg v. Trickey, 908 F.2d 258, 260 (8th Cir.

1990); Thompson v. Carlson, 705 F.2d 868, 869 (6th Cir. 1983)), aff’d sub nom. Steshenko 

v. Albee, 691 F. App’x 869 (9th Cir. 2017); Emrit v. Yahoo! Inc., No. C 13-5951 SBA, 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 198 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

15cv1044-WQH-RBM

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

2014 WL 3841015, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014) (dismissing with prejudice for omission 

of a “recent inheritance of approximately $31,000 [and] . . . extensive litigation history”; 

rejecting “Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that he simply made a mistake in failing to report 

the inheritance he recently received”); Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 328 F. Supp. 2d 

463, 468–69 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (dismissing with prejudice upon determining that prisoner 

proceeding IFP was an experienced litigant familiar who had filed at least eight civil IFP 

actions against the government in federal court and had acted in bad faith by diverting

“$13,500 in settlements to her mother’s address in Staten Island”). 

In this case, the form for the motion to proceed in forma pauperis reflects Plaintiff’s 

signature dated April 14, 2015 below the statement, “I declare under penalty of perjury that 

the above information is true and correct and understand that a false statement herein may 

result in the dismissal of my claims.” (ECF No. 2 at 3). The form asks “In the past twelve 

months have you received any money from any of the following sources?” and lists sources

of money, including a catchall provision for “[a]ny other sources.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff 

checked “no” for all sources. Id. Plaintiff included a certified copy of his trust account 

statement for the six months prior to April 24, 2015, which captured transactions dating 

back to October 24, 2014. Id. at 7. 

Defendants provide a copy of a settlement agreement from May of 2014, stating that 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation agreed to pay Plaintiff $3,000 

to settle Roberts v. T.L. Gonzalez, et al.,12-cv-02044-JVS-DTB (C.D. Cal.). (ECF No. 

189-2 at 3–6). Defendants provide the declaration of A. Niehaus, Settlement Coordinator 

with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, supported by a copy of 

Plaintiff’s inmate statement report. (Niehaus Decl., ECF No. 189-3). In the declaration, 

Niehaus states, “I reviewed inmate Robert’s trust account transactions for the month of 

October 2014, and determined that settlement check #05-208471 in the amount of $3,000 

was deposited into inmate Robert’s trust account on October 21, 2014.” Id. ¶ 2. The inmate 

statement report shows a deposit of $3,000 on October 21, 2014, and an “inmate voluntary 

withdrawal” of $2,000 on the same date. (Ex. A to Niehaus Decl., ECF No. 189-4). 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 198 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

15cv1044-WQH-RBM

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

Defendants set forth seven other civil rights actions filed by Plaintiff, in which he 

was granted IFP status: (1) Roberts v. Garcia, et al., 3:98-cv-01795-CGA (S.D. Cal.); (2) 

Roberts v. Hudson, et al., 3:00-cv-02479-IEG-JAH (S.D. Cal.); (3) Roberts v. Bach, et al.,

3:01-cv-00193-K-JFS (S.D. Cal.); (4) Roberts v. Hernandez, et al., 3:05-cv-01419-WQHPCL (S.D. Cal.); (5) Roberts v. Matthew Cate, et al., 2:08-CV-02624 JAM KJN (E.D. 

Cal.); (6) Roberts v. J. Marshall, et al., CV10-6795 JVS (DTB) (C.D. Cal.); (7) Roberts v. 

T.L. Gonzalez, et al., 2:12-cv-02044-JVS-DTB (C.D. Cal.). 

2

Plaintiff provides his own declaration, stating that he received $3,000 in settlement 

money in October of 2014, which he sent to his sister for rent to avoid eviction. (Roberts 

Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5–6, ECF No. 192). Plaintiff states that he “had totally forgotten about [the 

settlement agreement],” and that outside of being able to help his sister, he had only been 

able to “pay off [his] federal court filing fees.” Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff states that he depends on 

the State of California to live, that his sister has not sent him food since 2014, and that he 

has not otherwise received outside food since 2005. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff states that he owes 

six hundred dollars in filing fees for a different federal case and that he owes ten dollars in 

filing fees for an additional different federal case. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff states that he has paid 

off the filing fees for six additional different federal cases. Id. ¶ 12. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff is an experienced litigant familiar with IFP. The record 

demonstrates that Plaintiff received $3,000 from a settlement within the twelve months 

preceding his IFP motion. The record demonstrates that Plaintiff inaccurately stated that 

he had no other sources of money in the twelve months preceding his IFP application. 

Plaintiff’s IFP application included a trust account statement with transactions dating back 

to October 24, 2014—three days after Plaintiff received the $3,000 settlement and 

transferred $2,000 out of the account for his sister. Plaintiff’s claim that the omission was 

 

2 Courts may take judicial notice of “proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 

judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” U.S. ex rel. Robinson 

Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 

quotations omitted). The Court takes judicial notice of the proceedings set forth by Defendants. 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 198 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

15cv1044-WQH-RBM

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

an oversight is not credible. The record supports a finding that that Plaintiff concealed the 

$3,000 he received in settlement money in October of 2014 in order to gain access to the

court without prepayment of filing fees. The record supports a finding that Plaintiff 

knowingly provided inaccurate information regarding sources of money during the twelve 

months preceding the IFP motion. See Vann, 496 F. App’x at 116 (“Regardless of whether 

Vann . . . gifted money to relatives during the twelve months preceding the filing of his 

complaint and application for in forma pauperis status, Vann was required to accurately 

and truthfully state his financial history and assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (a)(2). This he 

did not do. . . . Given the falsity of Vann’s application and his declarations, Vann’s bad 

faith in this case evidenced by his litigation experience and extensive familiarity of the in 

forma pauperis process, and Vann’s failure to credibly explain or correct his declarations 

when given an opportunity to do so, the District Court was well within its discretion when 

it dismissed Vann’s complaint with prejudice.”); see also Steshenko, 2015 WL 1503651, 

at *5. The record does not support a finding that Plaintiff’s omission was a “mere[]

inaccuracy,” see Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235 n.8, or a “misstatement[], or minor 

misrepresentation[] made in good faith,” see Vann, 496 F. App’x at 115. The Court “shall 

dismiss the case” as required by § 1915(e)(2). 

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF 

No. 189) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall prepare a judgment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 183) 

and the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 186) filed by Plaintiff 

are dismissed as moot. 

Dated: August 2, 2019

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 198 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8