Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01691/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\11cv1691-grt IFP dsm Def & serve.wpd 1 11cv1691 JAH (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERBERT JOHNSON,

CDCR #P-60805, Civil No. 11-1691 JAH (NLS)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING NO INITIAL PARTIAL

FILING FEE AND GARNISHING

$350.00 BALANCE FROM

PRISONER TRUST ACCOUNT

[ECF No. 2]; 

(2) DISMISSING DEFENDANTS

FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b); 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.

K. MILLARD; N. SABATI; CAMPBELL;

A. LOWE; S. WAGER; J. RIVERA;

COBB,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional

Facility located in San Diego, California, and proceeding 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”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2].

Case 3:11-cv-01691-JAH-NLS Document 4 Filed 10/07/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\11cv1691-grt IFP dsm Def & serve.wpd 2 11cv1691 JAH (NLS)

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 $350. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). 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).

The Court finds that 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. Plaintiff’s trust account

statement shows he has insufficient funds with which to pay any initial partial filing fee. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF

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).

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

The PLRA’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 also obligate 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)(B)

and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any prisoner civil

action and all other IFP 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)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01691-JAH-NLS Document 4 Filed 10/07/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\11cv1691-grt IFP dsm Def & serve.wpd 3 11cv1691 JAH (NLS)

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

To state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) the conduct he complains

of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that conduct violated a

right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Humphries v. County of Los

Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170, 1184 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).

B. Eleventh Amendment

First, to the extent Plaintiff asserts claims against the “Medical and Mailroom”

Departments of the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, the Court finds the claims against

these Defendants must be dismissed for failing to state a claim and for seeking damages against

defendants who are immune pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & (iii). The State of

California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, an agency of the State

of California, and Departments within the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, are not

“persons” subject to suit under § 1983 and are instead, entitled to absolute immunity from

monetary damages actions under the Eleventh Amendment. See Seminole Tribe of Florida v.

Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 53-54 (1996); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S.

89, 106 (1984); see also Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1993)

(holding that a state department of corrections is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983).

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the “Medical and Mailroom” are hereby dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & (iii) without leave to amend.

C. Eighth Amendment claims

As to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are

sufficiently pleaded to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and

1915A(b). Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203

F.3d at 1126-27; 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.”). 

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01691-JAH-NLS Document 4 Filed 10/07/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\11cv1691-grt IFP dsm Def & serve.wpd 4 11cv1691 JAH (NLS)

Plaintiff is cautioned, however, 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).

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) [ECF No. 2] 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. Defendant “Medical and Mailroom” is DISMISSED from this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b). The Clerk of Court shall terminate this Defendant

from the docket.

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

remaining Defendants and shall and 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 certified copy of

this Order and a certified copy of his Complaint and the summons for purposes of serving the

Defendants. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285

as completely and accurately as possible, and to return it to the United States Marshal according

to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. 

Case 3:11-cv-01691-JAH-NLS Document 4 Filed 10/07/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\11cv1691-grt IFP dsm Def & serve.wpd 5 11cv1691 JAH (NLS)

Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon the

Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285. 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).

6. 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

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 the 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 7, 2011

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01691-JAH-NLS Document 4 Filed 10/07/11 Page 5 of 5