Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02100/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02100-1/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

3:16-cv-02100-BTM-DHB

I:\Chambers Moskowitz\JESSICA\Pro Se\16cv2100-grt IFP & serve.docm

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD WILSON

B-93800,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. CUEVAS; M. MOYA; J. OLIVO; 

M.A. MENDOZA,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-DHB

ORDER:

1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a) (ECF No. 6)

AND

2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 

EFFECT SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

AND Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3)

Gerald Wilson (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison located 

in Corcoran, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 

(“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that he was 

subjected to excessive force in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights when he was 

previously housed at Calipatria State Prison in 2016. (Compl. at 1, 12-18.)

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 8 Filed 03/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:16-cv-02100-BTM-DHB

I:\Chambers Moskowitz\JESSICA\Pro Se\16cv2100-grt IFP & serve.docm

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

Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 6). 

I. Plaintiff’s 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).1 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 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if a prisoner, like Plaintiff, is 

granted leave to proceed IFP, he remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments,” 

see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), 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 

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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution 

 

1

 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.

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 8 Filed 03/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:16-cv-02100-BTM-DHB

I:\Chambers Moskowitz\JESSICA\Pro Se\16cv2100-grt IFP & serve.docm

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

having custody of the prisoner then 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 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, but it 

shows that he has a current available balance of zero. 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 (ECF No. 6) 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 will be collected by the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) 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. Initial Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s IFP status or the payment of any partial filing fees, 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 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof, 

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 8 Filed 03/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:16-cv-02100-BTM-DHB

I:\Chambers Moskowitz\JESSICA\Pro Se\16cv2100-grt IFP & serve.docm

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

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(b); 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)).

All complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by 

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Determining 

whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that 

requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.

The “mere possibility of misconduct” falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. 

Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(“[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.”); 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)”). 

However, while the court “ha[s] 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)), it may not 

“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).

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 8 Filed 03/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:16-cv-02100-BTM-DHB

I:\Chambers Moskowitz\JESSICA\Pro Se\16cv2100-grt IFP & serve.docm

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

As currently pleaded, the Court finds the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint 

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

1915A(b). Accordingly, the Court will direct the U.S. Marshal to effect 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) (ECF No. 

6) is GRANTED.

2. The Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, shall collect from Plaintiff’s 

prison trust account the $350 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 Scott 

Kernan, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 

942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint 

(ECF No. 1) upon Defendants and forward it to Plaintiff along with blank U.S. Marshal 

Form 285s for each named Defendant. In addition, the Clerk is directed provide Plaintiff 

with a certified copy of this Order and a certified copy of his Complaint (ECF No. 1) and 

the summons so that he may serve each named Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP 

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 8 Filed 03/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:16-cv-02100-BTM-DHB

I:\Chambers Moskowitz\JESSICA\Pro Se\16cv2100-grt IFP & serve.docm

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

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. 

5. Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal is ORDERED to serve a copy of the 

Complaint and summons upon the named Defendants 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).

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 by 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 the document was served on the Defendants, or counsel 

for Defendants, and the date of that service. Any paper received by the Court which has 

not been properly filed with the Clerk, or which fails to include a Certificate of Service, 

may be disregarded.

Dated: March 3, 2017

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 8 Filed 03/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6