Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00199/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00199-0/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

DOROTHY MARAGLINO, 

Booking #12533188, Civil No. 15cv0199 WQH (MDD)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

[ECF Doc. No. 5]

 vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

On January 29, 2015, Dorothy Maraglino (“Plaintiff”), a pretrial detainee at Los

Colinas Detention Facility (“LCDF”) in Santee, California, and proceeding pro se, filed

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

claimed the County of San Diego and County Sheriff’s Department officials denied her

constitutional rights by implementing a policy change for detainees classified as

“protective custody (PC)/administrative segregation (Ad-Seg)” “without notice” in

November 2014, and that as a result, she was deprived of “court-approved contact visits

with her minor child.” See Compl. at 3, 6-7. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief

as well as nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. Id. at 8-9.

/ / /

/ / /

-1- 15cv0199 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:15-cv-00199-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 04/10/15 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

On February 5, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case without prejudice

because she failed to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a) or file a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days leave, however, in

which to pay the filing fee in full, or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP, which

“include[d] a certified copy of her trust account statement for the 6-month period

preceding the filing of her Complaint” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D.

CAL. CIVLR 3.2(b). (Id. at 3. Plaintiff was also cautioned that if she elected to proceed

IFP, she would nevertheless remain obligated to pay the entire filing fee in “increments,”

id. at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2)); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185

(9th Cir. 2015)), and her Complaint would be subject to a sua sponte screening, and

potential dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) if it was found

frivolous or malicious, if it failed to state a claim, or if it sought damages from immune

defendants. Id. at 3 & n.3. 

On February 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding several

defendants and causes of action, as a matter of course pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a). 

(ECF No. 4); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546

(9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”). At the same time,

she filed a Motion to Proceed IFP. (ECF No. 5). In her IFP Motion, Plaintiff claims she

is still a pre-trial detainee, and she seeks a “fee waiver” because she is unemployed. (Id.

at 1.)

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

As Plaintiff was informed on February 5, 2015, all parties instituting any civil

action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

-2- 15cv0199 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:15-cv-00199-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 04/10/15 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

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 the plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if she 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, if the plaintiff is a prisoner at the time of filing, even if she is granted

leave to proceed IFP, her filing fees are not “waived.” Instead, she may be permitted to

commence suit, but remains obligated by statute to pay the entire fee in “increments,” see

Williams, 775 F.3d at 1185, regardless of whether her case is ultimately dismissed. See

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

A “prisoner” is defined as “any person” who at the time of filing is “incarcerated or

detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated

delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation,

pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 847.

Prisoners who seek leave to proceed IFP must also 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). From the

certified trust account statement, the Court assesses 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); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850.

Thereafter, the institution having custody of the prisoner collects subsequent payments,

assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any month in which the prisoner’s

account exceeds $10, and forwards them to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

/ / / 

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.

-3- 15cv0199 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:15-cv-00199-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 04/10/15 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

While Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a), she has not attached a certified copy of her LCDF trust account statements, or

an institutional equivalent, for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of her

original Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. Section

1915(a)(2) clearly requires 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 initial filing fee which is statutorily required to initiate the

prosecution of her civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

II. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. No. 5) is DENIED

and this action remains DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400

filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

(2) Plaintiff is GRANTED an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this

Order in which to re-open her case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and

administrative filing fee, or (2) filing a new Motion to Proceed IFP, which must include

a certified copy of her trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing

of her original Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR

3.2(b).2

 

2

 Plaintiff is once again cautioned that if she chooses to proceed further by either prepaying the full $400 civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported Motion to

Proceed IFP, her First Amended Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 4) will be screened before service and may be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether she pays or is obligated to pay filing fees. 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 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004

(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or

-4- 15cv0199 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:15-cv-00199-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 04/10/15 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

(3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with another

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

her use and convenience should she wish to further prosecute this matter. However, if

Plaintiff neither pays the $400 filing fee in full or sufficiently completes and files the

attached Motion to Proceed IFP, together with a certified copy of her trust account

statement within 30 days, this action will remained dismissed without prejudice pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without further Order of the Court.

DATED: April 10, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

employee of a governmental entity.”).

-5- 15cv0199 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:15-cv-00199-WQH-MDD Document 6 Filed 04/10/15 Page 5 of 5