Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00215/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00215-0/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

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

JOSE LUIS GARCIA, 

CDCR #E-14150,

Civil No. 15cv0215 BTM (DHB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL

ACTION:

1) FOR FAILING TO PAY 

FILING FEES REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR

FAILING TO MOVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

AND

2) FOR LACK OF PROPER

VENUE PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) AND 

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)

 vs.

KAMALA D. HARRIS;

ERIK H. HOLDER, U.S. Attorney

General,

Defendants.

Jose Luis Garcia (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at High Desert

State Prison (“HDSP”) in Susanville, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a twopage pleading entitled “Motion to Request for Stolen Documentsfrom State and Federal

Habeas Corpus” (ECF No. 1). 

While not altogether clear, it appears Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for

documents he claims were “lost or destroyed” in an unidentified state and/or federal

habeas corpus proceeding, and for this court to order his “unconditional release” due to

-1- 15cv0215 BTM (DHB)

Case 3:15-cv-00215-BTM-DHB Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 5
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 “crime” which he alleges was “committed by C/O Parker, the Committee at MCSP

(Mule Creek State Prison) and multiple adverse parties.” See ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Attached

to Plaintiff’s Motion are various exhibits en-captioned with Case Nos. “2:13-cv-02385-

AC” and 2:14-cv-00865-CMK,” which appear to be motions, declarations, and other

assorted documents related to two civil rights actions he has filed, and which remain

pending, before the Eastern District of California. Id. at 3-55, Exs. A-I.1

Because Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, the Court liberally construed his

Motion as an attempt to commence a separate civil action in this district, and assigned

it Civil Case No. 3:15-cv-00215 BTM (DHB). See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police

Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (where a plaintiff appears in propria persona,

the Court must construe his pleadings liberally and afford plaintiff any benefit of the

doubt).

I. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS

However, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district

court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a

filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s

2

failure to pay this filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (“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). 

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to

commence a separate civil action in this Court, nor has he submitted a Motion to Proceed

IFP as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, no civil action can yet proceed here.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.

The Court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and

1

without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters

at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court 

(quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 2

administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of

Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2014). The additional $50

administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

-2- 15cv0215 BTM (DHB)

Case 3:15-cv-00215-BTM-DHB Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 5
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

II. INITIAL REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S PLEADING

Moreover, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court must also

“review, before docketing or as soon thereafter as practicable, any civil action brought

by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity, officer or employee,” and

dismiss complaints or any portion thereof that are “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seek[ing] monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b). See Hamilton v.

Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). 

“The first step in a civil action in a United States district court is the filing of [a]

complaint with the clerk or the judge.” 4 Wright, Miller, Kane, Marcus & Steinman, FED.

PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 1052 (3d ed. 2002 & Supp. 2014); FED. R. CIV. P. 3 (“A civil

action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”) (emphasis added); Douglas

v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Rule 3 provides that a civil action is

commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), further requires a complaint to contain: “(1)

a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” . . . (2) a short and

plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the

relief sought.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). And while Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed

factual allegations,’ . . . it [does] demand[] more than an unadorned, the defendantunlawfully-harmedme accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(quoting

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

The Motion Plaintiff has submitted, even if liberally construed as a complaint

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 3, fails to comply with Rule 8 insofar as it fails to “state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550

U.S. at 570). First, Plaintiff names California Attorney General Kamala Harris, and

former U.S. Attorney General Erik H. Holder, as the sole Defendants in the caption of

his Motion. He presumably invokes federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 based on the violation of his due process rights at MCSP and allegedly lost or

-3- 15cv0215 BTM (DHB)

Case 3:15-cv-00215-BTM-DHB Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 5
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

destroyed documentsrelated to an unidentified state orfederal habeas petition; but he has

failed to include any “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that [either of these] defendant[s] is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at

678. “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff

must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own actions,

has violated the Constitution.” Id. at 676; see also SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir.

2007) (finding motion for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains insufficient to commence a

civil action against subject of motion); Radin v. Jersey City Medical Center, 375 Fed.

Appx. 205 (3d Cir. 2010) (otherwise blank document containing only caption heading

naming one defendant followed by “et al.” not “a complaint” sufficient for

commencement of suit under Rule 3).

Second, while the Court would normally grant Plaintiff an opportunity to either

submit the full filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed IFP in order to proceed, a further

review of his submissions reveals that his case lacks proper venue. Venue may be raised

by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading and the

time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Section 1391(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides, in pertinent part, that a

“civil action may be brought in – (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides,

if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a

judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is

situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v.

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). “The district court of a

district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall

dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such case to any district or division

in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at HDSP, and he fails to allege a county of

residence for either Defendant Harris or Holder. Moreover, the only factual allegations

-4- 15cv0215 BTM (DHB)

Case 3:15-cv-00215-BTM-DHB Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 4 of 5
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

in his Motion involve a Correctional Officer named Parker (who is not named as a

Defendant), and “the Committee at MCSP,” whom he claims somehow “hinder[ed] or

“obstruct[ed]” his “liberty” by allegedly either losing or destroying “documents

regarding [his] state and federal habeas corpus” proceedings. See ECF No. 1 at 1. Thus,

to the extent it appears the substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

Plaintiff’s claims occurred at MCSP, in Ione, California, located in Amador County, or

to the extent the exhibits attached to his Motion indicate his claims are related to two

different civil rights actions currently pending in the Eastern District of California, see

ECF No. 1, Exs. A-I at 3-55 (citing Garcia v. Sahir, et al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:13-

cv-02385-AC, and Garcia v. Foulk, E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:14-cv-00865-CMK),

venue is proper in the Eastern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(b), but

not in the Southern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(d) (“The Southern

District [of California] comprises the counties of Imperial and San Diego.”). See 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice

based on Plaintiff’s failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a),

his failure to file a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and for lack

of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1406(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2015

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

-5- 15cv0215 BTM (DHB)

Case 3:15-cv-00215-BTM-DHB Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 5 of 5