Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01184/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01184-0/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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06-1184-dnyIFP.wpd 1 06cv1184

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY BETHEA,

CDC #E-57004, Civil No. 06-1184 DMS (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

[Doc. No. 2]; 

AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

AS PREMATURE

[Doc. No. 5]

vs.

GEORGE GIURBINO, Warden; 

R.W. FOX, Program Lieutenant; 

S.D. KHATRI, Acting Chief Medical

Officer; and M.N. BROWN, 

Correctional Counselor I,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate 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 alleges that various CEN officials violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

in August and September 2005 by refusing to honor his doctor’s orders and filing disciplinary

charges against him for failing to work. (See Compl. ¶¶ 3-11.) Plaintiff has not prepaid the civil

filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but has instead submitted a Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2], as well as a Request for

U.S. Marshal Service [Doc. No. 5].

Case 3:06-cv-01184-DMS-CAB Document 6 Filed 09/13/06 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06-1184-dnyIFP.wpd 2 06cv1184

I.

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

Effective April 9, 2006, 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

prepay the entire fee only if the party 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). 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).

Prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP 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....” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 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), (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).

While Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed IFP in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a), he has not attached a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the 6-

month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2);

S.D.CAL. CIVLR 3.2. Section 1915(a)(2) clearly mandates that prisoners “seeking to bring a

civil action ...without prepayment of fees ... shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund

account statement (or institutional equivalent) ... for the 6-month period immediately preceding

the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added). Without Plaintiff’s trust

account statement, the Court is simply unable to assess the appropriate amount of the filing fee

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01184-DMS-CAB Document 6 Filed 09/13/06 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06-1184-dnyIFP.wpd 3 06cv1184

required to initiate this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] must be DENIED.

II.

REQUEST FOR U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE

Plaintiff has also filed a Request for U.S. Marshal Service [Doc. No. 5]. The Court may

order the United States Marshal to serve the summons and complaint on a plaintiff’s behalf

pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), but only in cases where the prisonerplaintiff has been granted leave to proceed IFP and the Court has found the allegations in the

complaint sufficient to survive the mandatory screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

and § 1915A(b). 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 fails to state a claim); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th

Cir. 2000) (discussing screening requirements in § 1915A); 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”).

Thus, because the Court has denied Plaintiff’s Motion for IFP, and has yet to screen his

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), his request for Marshal service

must be DENIED without prejudice as premature. If Plaintiff files a supplemental Motion to

Proceed IFP and provides the Court with the trust account statements required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2), he is granted leave to proceed IFP, and his Complaint survives screening, the Court

will thereafter direct the “officers of the court [to] issue and serve all process.” FED.R.CIV.P.

4(c)(2) (providing that initial service of summons and complaint may “be effected by a United

States Marshal, [or] deputy United States Marshal,” and that “such an appointment must be made

when the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”) (emphasis

added).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01184-DMS-CAB Document 6 Filed 09/13/06 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06-1184-dnyIFP.wpd 4 06cv1184

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For all the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED; and

(2) Plaintiff’s Request for U.S. Marshal Service [Doc. No. 5] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Plaintiff if further

GRANTED forty five (45) days from the date this Order is stamped “Filed” to either: (1) pay

the entire $350 filing fee, or (2) file the attached Supplemental 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2(b). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with a

Court-approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” in this

matter. If Plaintiff neither pays the $350 filing fee in full or sufficiently completes and files the

attached Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action shall remained closed without further

Order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 13, 2006

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01184-DMS-CAB Document 6 Filed 09/13/06 Page 4 of 4