Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01755/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01755-0/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

ADAM SHARPE, 

CDCR #V-04507, Civil No. 15cv1755 LAB (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL

ACTION:

1) FOR FAILING TO PAY 

FILING FEES REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR 

FAILING TO FILE A MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

AND

2) FOR FAILING TO ALLEGE

SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION AND/OR

COMPLY WITH FED. R. CIV. P. 3, 8(a)(1)-(3) & 12(h)(3)

vs.

UNNAMED,

Defendants.

Adam Sharpe (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State

Prison (“CAL”), and proceeding pro se, filed a letter with the Court on August 6, 2015,

while he was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California. Plaintiff

appears to seek permission to file a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

in the Southern District of California against unidentified CAL officials based on his

“serious medical need[s].” See ECF Doc. No. 1 at 1. 

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv1755-dsm-no-pay-IFP.wpd -1- 15cv1755 LAB (BGS)

Case 3:15-cv-01755-LAB-BGS Document 2 Filed 11/12/15 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

In his letter, Plaintiff contends he “accidently” filed a complaint in the Central

District of California, but soon after realized his claims arose in the Southern District;

therefore, he requests that this Court send him a form § 1983 Complaint and an in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) application to file in the Southern District of California, just in case the

Central District of California denies his request to transfer his previously filed civil action

here based on its lack of proper venue. Id.

In an abundance of caution, and because Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel,

the Court liberally construed his letter as an attempt to commence a civil action, and 

assigned it Civil Case No. 3:15-cv-1755-LAB-BGS. 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).1

 An action may proceed despite a party’s

failure to pay this filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed 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 civil action, nor has he submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP as required by

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, this case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.

/ / /

/ / /

1

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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv1755-dsm-no-pay-IFP.wpd -2- 15cv1755 LAB (BGS)

Case 3:15-cv-01755-LAB-BGS Document 2 Filed 11/12/15 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, “[t]he 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).

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), a complaint must 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). 

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction

“must neither be disregarded nor evaded.” Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office,

657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437

U.S. 365, 374 (1978)). The Court must determine sua sponte whether it has subject matter

jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). See

also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

 Here, while Plaintiff’s letter describes his desire to proceed with civil rights claims

against CAL officials, the letter itself does not comply with Rule 8’s basic pleading

requirements. Nor does Plaintiff affirmatively allege subject matter jurisdiction pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3). See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F. Supp.

2d 1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“The court will not . . . infer allegations supporting

federal jurisdiction; federal subject matter [jurisdiction] must always be affirmatively

alleged.”). 

Thus, based on these failures, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to “state[] a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation

omitted), and his case must be dismissed. See Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3

(9th Cir. 2011) (noting court’s obligation under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to

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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv1755-dsm-no-pay-IFP.wpd -3- 15cv1755 LAB (BGS)

Case 3:15-cv-01755-LAB-BGS Document 2 Filed 11/12/15 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

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

requirement to 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)).

III. LEAVE TO AMEND

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and contends that he intends to pursue civil

rights claims against CAL officials, see ECF Doc. No. 1 at 1, the Court would normally

grant him an opportunity to file both a proper Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

as well as a Motion to Proceed IFP. See FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely

give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”). “This policy is applied even more

liberally to pro se litigants.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987). 

However, doing so under the circumstances appears both unnecessary and futile,

since a review of this Court’s docket confirms that the civil rights Complaint Plaintiff

alleges he initially and “accidentally” filed in the Central District of California on July

31, 2015, and which alleges the deprivation of medical care at CAL, Sharpe v. California

Correctional Healthcare Servs., et al., C.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:15-cv-05792-AGAFM, has since been transferred here, assigned a new case number, and is currently

pending before the Honorable U.S. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff. See Sharpe v.

California Correctional Healthcare Servs., et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:15-cv-1834-

H-JLB; Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (court “‘may take 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.’”) (quoting Bennett v.

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

Because Plaintiff may not proceed with duplicative actions, see Cato v. United

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.3 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming district court’s sua sponte

dismissal of a complaint “that merely repeat[ed] pending or previously litigated claims”

as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915) (citation omitted), the Court finds granting him

leave to amend in order to proceed separately in a parallel civil action alleging similar

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv1755-dsm-no-pay-IFP.wpd -4- 15cv1755 LAB (BGS)

Case 3:15-cv-01755-LAB-BGS Document 2 Filed 11/12/15 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

claims for relief would be futile. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)

(“Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to

amend.”); Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982)

(noting “generally recognized doctrine of federal comity which permits a district court

to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and

issues has been filed in another district.”).

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

(1) DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failing to pay the $400 filing

fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), failing to file a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and failing to file a Complaint which alleges federal subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 3, 8(a)(1)-(3), and 12(h)(3); and

(2) DENIES leave to amend in this case, but without prejudice to Plaintiff’s

pursuit of his pending inadequate medical care claims in Sharpe v. California

Correctional Healthcare Servs., et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 15-cv-1834-H-JLB.

The Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 10, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv1755-dsm-no-pay-IFP.wpd -5- 15cv1755 LAB (BGS)

Case 3:15-cv-01755-LAB-BGS Document 2 Filed 11/12/15 Page 5 of 5