Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00722/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00722-0/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

3:17-cv-0722-CAB-JLB

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

DARIUS SIMS,

CDCR #T-51521,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R. WALKER; J.K. CHAU; D.J. 

CLAYTON; R. BARECHI; D. 

STRAYHORN; 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-0722-CAB-JLB

ORDER:

1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 2]

AND

2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 

EFFCECT SERVICE OF 

COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

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

Darius Sims (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJD”), and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2), 

followed by exhibits in support of his Complaint (ECF No. 5).

Case 3:17-cv-00722-CAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:17-cv-0722-CAB-JLB

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 of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The 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). However, 

prisoners who are granted leave to proceed IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee in 

“increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 

(2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of 

whether their action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. 

Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).

Section 1915(a)(2) also requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to 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); 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 having 

custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the 

preceding month’s income, in any month in which his 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); 

Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629.

 

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. June 1, 2016). The additional $50 administrative fee does 

not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00722-CAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:17-cv-0722-CAB-JLB

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

In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a CDCR Inmate Statement 

Report demonstrating his trust account activity and balances for the six-months preceding 

the filing of his Complaint. See ECF No. 3 at 1-2; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL.

CIVLR 3.2; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s prison 

certificate, 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. 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 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. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)

A. Standard of Review

Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his Complaint also requires a 

pre-answer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these 

statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of 

it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants 

who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 

2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that 

the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” 

Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford

Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).

Case 3:17-cv-00722-CAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:17-cv-0722-CAB-JLB

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

“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard 

applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6)”). Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 

as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121. 

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.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “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” or 

“unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting

this plausibility standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009).

Finally, in deciding whether Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief, the 

Court may consider exhibits attached to his Complaint. See FED. R. CIV. P. 10(c) (“A 

copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all 

purposes.”); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 

n.19 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Amfac Mortg. Corp. v. Ariz. Mall of Tempe, Inc., 583 F.2d 

426 (9th Cir. 1978) (“[M]aterial which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may 

be considered” in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.)).

////

////

////

Case 3:17-cv-00722-CAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:17-cv-0722-CAB-JLB

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

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint sufficient to survive the “low 

threshold” for proceeding past the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). See Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 

2012; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976) (prison 

officials are liable if they act with deliberate indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical 

needs); id. at 104 (deliberate indifference “is manifested by prison [officials] intentionally 

denying or delaying access to medical care.”).

Therefore, the Court will direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service of summons 

Plaintiff’s Complaint on his 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

For the reasons explained, the Court: 

1. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

(ECF No. 2).

2. ORDERS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from 

Plaintiff’s 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. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Scott 

Kernan, Secretary, CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001.

////

////

Case 3:17-cv-00722-CAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:17-cv-0722-CAB-JLB

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. DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 

No. 1) and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each 

Defendant. In addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order, 

certified copies of his Complaint and Exhibits (ECF No. 1, 5), and the summons so that 

he may serve Defendants. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must complete 

the USM Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, include an address where 

each named Defendant may be found and/or subject to service, and return them to the 

United States Marshal according to the instructions the Clerk provides in the letter 

accompanying his IFP package.

5. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint, Exhibits 

(ECF No. 5) and summons upon the Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the USM 

Form 285s provided to him. All costs of that service will be advanced by the United 

States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3).

6. ORDERS Defendants, once they have been served, to reply to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant may occasionally be 

permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any 

jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has 

conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), 

and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone 

that Plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” defendant is 

required to respond).

7. ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to 

serve upon Defendants, or if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ 

counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the 

Court’s consideration pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b). Plaintiff must include with every 

original document he seeks to file with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the 

manner in which a true and correct copy of that document has been was served on 

Case 3:17-cv-00722-CAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:17-cv-0722-CAB-JLB

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

Defendants or their counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 5.2. Any 

document received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk or 

which fails to include a Certificate of Service upon the Defendants, or their counsel, may 

be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00722-CAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7