Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01130/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01130-0/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

1 11cv1130 BTM (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL BAILEY,

CDCR #AD-1630,

Civil No. 11-1130 BTM (BLM)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, [ECF No. 3]; 

(2) DISMISSING MONEY DAMAGE

CLAIMS AS TO DEFENDANT

MATTHEW CATE PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & 1915A; and 

(3) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO

EFFECT SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) 

& 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

MATTHEW CATE; UNKNOWN

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER #1;

UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

#2,

Defendants.

Michael Bailey (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California

Institution for Men, and proceeding in pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

[ECF No. 3].

Case 3:11-cv-01130-BTM-BLM Document 4 Filed 07/05/11 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

2 11cv1130 BTM (BLM)

I.

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP [ECF No. 3]

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 plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee

only if the plaintiff 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, prisoners granted leave to

proceed IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether their

action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has no available funds from which to pay filing fees at this

time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed

IFP [ECF No. 3] 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).

II.

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The PLRA also obligates the Court to 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.

First, Plaintiff names Matthew Cate as a Defendant but fails to allege any specific factual

allegations pertaining to this Defendant in his individual capacity. There is no respondeat

superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1437-38 (9th Cir.

1993). Instead, “[t]he inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and

Case 3:11-cv-01130-BTM-BLM Document 4 Filed 07/05/11 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

1

 Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of,

and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12[] motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.”

Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

3 11cv1130 BTM (BLM)

responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused

a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Rizzo

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976)). 

Supervisory prison officials may only be held liable for the allegedly unconstitutional

violations of a subordinate if Plaintiff sets forth allegations which show: (1) how or to what

extent they personally participated in or directed a subordinate’s actions, and (2) in either acting

or failing to act, they were an actual and proximate cause of the deprivation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). As currently pleaded,

however, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth facts which might be liberally construed to

support an individualized constitutional claim against Defendant Cate in his individual capacity.

Thus, Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against Cate in his individual capacity are dismissed.

However, Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief against Cate survives the sua sponte screening

process and remains in this action.

As for the remaining claims against the remaining Defendants, the Court finds Plaintiff’s

allegations sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)

and 1915A(b).1

 Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his

behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3). However, Plaintiff must make an effort

to identify the unnamed Defendants and amend his pleading to substitute their true names.

While the use of “Doe” Defendants is disfavored, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims

at this time. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie

v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)) (where identity of alleged defendants will not be

known prior to filing of complaint, plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery

and amend his complaint to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery

would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds).

Case 3:11-cv-01130-BTM-BLM Document 4 Filed 07/05/11 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

4 11cv1130 BTM (BLM)

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 3] is

GRANTED. 

2. The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his

designee, shall collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee

owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income and 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 Matthew Cate,

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515 S Street, Suite 502,

Sacramento, California 95814.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] upon the

Defendants and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each

Defendant. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of this Order and a copy

of his Complaint and the summons so that he may serve Defendants. 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 shall

serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the

USM Form 285s. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

5. Plaintiff shall serve upon the Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

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

Case 3:11-cv-01130-BTM-BLM Document 4 Filed 07/05/11 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

5 11cv1130 BTM (BLM)

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall 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: July 5, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01130-BTM-BLM Document 4 Filed 07/05/11 Page 5 of 5