Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01691/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01691-0/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

MARCOS CAVALIER,

Booking #12506195, Civil No. 14cv1691 WQH (DHB)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 2] 

AND

(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL

TO EFFECT SERVICE OF

COMPLAINT PURSUANT 

TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; 

WILLIAM GORE, Sheriff; 

SGT. KAMOSS, Deputy Sheriff; 

LT. MONTGOMERY, Lt. Sheriff;

BABCOCK #0106, Deputy Sheriff; 

EDGE #4706, Deputy Sheriff; 

LUSARDI, #0159, Deputy Sheriff;

MARTINEZ, #3156, Deputy Sheriff;

SOBASZEK, #3209, Deputy Sheriff;

TALAMANTEZ, # 6351, Deputy Sheriff; 

J. NAVARRO, #4431, Deputy Sheriff;

SPALSBURY, #0508, Deputy Sheriff; and

GONZALEZ #0109, Deputy Sheriff,

Defendants.

Marcos Cavalier (“Plaintiff”), who is currently incarcerated at the George Bailey

Detention Facility (“GBDF”) in San Diego, California,1

 and proceeding pro se, has filed

1

 On August 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address indicating that he is scheduled for release from GBDF on August 24, 2014 (Doc. No. 3). 

1 14cv1691 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01691-WQH-DHB Document 4 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 6
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

a civil rights complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc No. 1). Plaintiff

claims the County of San Diego, its Sheriff, and numerous San Diego County Sheriff’s

Department Deputies, violated his constitutional rights at GBDF on May 31, 2014, during

a strip search. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 4-9, 13, 15. Plaintiff further alleges

Defendants denied him due process during a disciplinary hearing related to the May 31,

2014 incident, id. at 10-11, refused to provide him with medical and mental health care

afterward, id. at 14, and denied him due process during prior disciplinary hearings which

had resulted in his “complete isolation in solitary confinement for 17 months.” Id. at 11-

12. 

Plaintiff has not prepaid the civil filing fee; instead he has filed a Motion to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (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

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).2

 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to

prepay the entire fee only if he 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). However, a

prisoner granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in

installments, regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(“PLRA”), a prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a “certified copy of the

trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the sixmonth period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified

2

 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, all parties filing civil actions on or after May 1, 2013, 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) (eff. May 1, 2013). However, the additional $50 administrative fee is waived if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

2 14cv1691 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01691-WQH-DHB Document 4 Filed 08/27/14 Page 2 of 6
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

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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(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).

In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of his trust

account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. 

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s trust account statement,

as well as the attached prison certificate issued by a Sheriff’s Department Deputy at

GBDF verifying his available balances, and has determined that while Plaintiff has had

$65 in average monthly balances and deposits in his account over the 6-month period

immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint, he had an available balance of only

$.37 in his account at the time of filing. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n

no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil

action or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means

by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.”); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve” preventing dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP case

based solely on a “failure to pay . . . due to the lack of funds available to him when

payment is ordered.”). 

Therefore, 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 entire $350

balance of the filing fees mandated shall be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the

Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

/ / /

/ / /

3 14cv1691 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01691-WQH-DHB Document 4 Filed 08/27/14 Page 3 of 6
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. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The PLRA also requires that the Court 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) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua

sponte dismiss 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)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010)

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as

true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In addition, courts

“have an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to

construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773

F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)). The court may not, however, “supply essential

elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of Regents of the

University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s pleading is sufficient to survive

the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).3

 Therefore,

3

 Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 

4 14cv1691 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01691-WQH-DHB Document 4 Filed 08/27/14 Page 4 of 6
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 Court will direct U.S. Marshal service on Plaintiff’s behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

(“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in

[IFP] cases.”); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a

United States marshal or deputy marshal . . . if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Doc. No.

2) is GRANTED.

2. The Watch Commander of GBDF, or his designee, shall forward the $350

total filing fee owed in this matter by collecting monthly payments from Plaintiff’s

account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income

and shall 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 the Watch

Commander, George Bailey Detention Facility, 446 Alta Rd., Suite 5300, San Diego,

California, 92158-0002.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1)

upon Defendants and shall and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal

Form 285 for each Defendant. In addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff with a certified

copy of this Order and a certified copy of his Complaint (Doc. No. 1) and the summons

so that he may serve each named Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,”

Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible,

and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions provided by

the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal

5 14cv1691 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01691-WQH-DHB Document 4 Filed 08/27/14 Page 5 of 6
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

will serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon each Defendant as directed by

Plaintiff on the USM Form 285s. All costs of service will be advanced by the United

States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

5. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s Complaint

within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant may occasionally be permitted to

“waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison,

or other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua

sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made

a preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a

“reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” the defendant is required to respond). 

6. Plaintiff must serve upon the Defendants or, if appearance has been entered

by counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other

document submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff must include with the

original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in

which a true and correct copy of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for

Defendants, and the date of service. Any paper received by the Court which has not been

filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

DATED: August 27, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

6 14cv1691 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01691-WQH-DHB Document 4 Filed 08/27/14 Page 6 of 6