Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01825/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01825-1/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 

FILED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES LOWELL MORGAN 

Inmate Booking No. 03-4977-01 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNNAMED DEFENDANTS, 

Defendants. 

Civil No. 13cv1825 WQH (NLS) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; and 

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) 

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the George Bailey Detention Facility located in San 

Diego, California, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, 

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a) [ECF No.3]. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

I:lEveryone,-EFILE-PROSEIWQH\13cv1825-grt IFP & d.m.wpd -1- 13cv1825 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:13-cv-01825-WQH-NLS Document 6 Filed 09/10/13 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 

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court ofthe 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 plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire fee only ifthe 

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)(I) & (2). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(I), and that he has attached a certified copy ofhis trust account statement pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. ClvLR 3.2. Plaintiffs trust account shows that he has 

insufficient 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)(I). However, the entire $350 balance of the 

filing fee 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. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A 

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, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion 

thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks 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 bane) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnickv. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 

446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A). 

[:lEveryone,-EFILE-PROSElWQHl13cvI82S-gn IFP & dsm.wpd -2- 13cv1825 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:13-cv-01825-WQH-NLS Document 6 Filed 09/10/13 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 

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte 

dismissal ofonly frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is 

frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 

324 (1989). However 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)and 1915A now mandate thatthe court reviewing 

an IFP or prisoner's suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of 

the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIY.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 ("[S]ection 

1915( e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 

that fails to state a claim."); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). 

"[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, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2) 

"parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). In addition, the Court's 

duty to liberally construe a pro se's pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is "particularly important in civil rights cases." Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person 

acting under color ofstate law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived 

the claimant ofsome right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the 

United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983;Parrattv. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on 

other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Haygoodv. Younger, 769 F.2d 

1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

Plaintiff s Complaint is devoid ofany coherent allegations. For example, Plaintiff states 

in his Complaint, "no excuse pardon me turkey" and admonishes that "punishment will be given 

out at the flag pole." (Compl. at 1-2.) A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis 

either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Based on the statements 

in the Complaint, the Court finds the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint to be frivolous because 

I:lEveryonel_EFILE-PROSEIWQID13cv1825-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -3- 13cv1825 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:13-cv-01825-WQH-NLS Document 6 Filed 09/10/13 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 

they lack even "an arguable basis either in law or in fact," and appear "fanciful," "fantastic," or 

"delusional." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's entire Complaint must be dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). 

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.2] is 

GRANTED. 

2. The Watch Commander, or his designee, shall collect from Plaintiff's 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 ofthe 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 Watch 

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

California 92158. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

4. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(b) & § 1915A(b). In addition, the Court finds further amendment would be futile. 

See Cahill v. Liberty Mut.lns. Co., 80 F.3d 336,339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial ofa leave to amend 

is not an abuse of discretion where further amendment would be futile); see also Robinson v. 

California Bd. ofPrison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ("Since plaintiff has 

not, and cannot, state a claim containing an arguable basis in law, this action should be dismissed 

without leave to amend; any amendment would be futile.") (citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 

904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

IlEveryone\_EI'ILE-PROSEIWQHl13cvI825-grt lFP & dsm.wpd -4-	 13cvl825 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:13-cv-01825-WQH-NLS Document 6 Filed 09/10/13 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. IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that an IFP appeal from this final order of 

dismissal would not appear to be taken "in good faith" pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See 

Coppedgev. United States, 369U.S.438,445 (1962); Gardnerv. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548,550 (9th 

Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only ifappeal would not be 

frivolous). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ~ 

I:lEveryone,-EFILE-PROSElWQHlI3cvI825-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -5- 13cv1825 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:13-cv-01825-WQH-NLS Document 6 Filed 09/10/13 Page 5 of 5