Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01071/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01071-0/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-1071-DMS-PCL

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

LEONARD WALTERS, aka 

JAMES C. WALTERS,

CDCR #BC-6589,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHERIFF, San Diego County, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL

ORDER: 

1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

[ECF No. 2]

AND 

2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

LEONARD WALTERS, also known as James C. Walters (“Plaintiff”), currently 

incarcerated at California Institution for Men (“CIM”) in Chino, California, and 

proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF 

No. 1). 

He has not prepaid the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but 

instead has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).

Case 3:17-cv-01071-DMS-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL

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. 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 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the 

plaintiff is a prisoner at the time of filing, he may be granted leave to proceed IFP, but he 

nevertheless 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). A “prisoner” is defined as “any person” who at the time of 

filing is “incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, 

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or 

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(h); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 847.

In order to comply with the PLRA, prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP must 

also submit a “certified copy of the[ir] 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). 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), (4); see Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850. Thereafter, the institution having custody 

of the prisoner collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s 

 

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-01071-DMS-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL

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

income, in any month in which the prisoner’s account exceeds $10, and forwards them to 

the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

While Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), 

he has not attached a certified copy of his CIM trust account statements for the 6-month 

period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); 

S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. Section 1915(a)(2) clearly requires that prisoners “seeking to bring 

a civil action ... without prepayment of fees ... shall 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) (emphasis 

added). 

Without Plaintiff’s certified trust account statement, the Court is unable to assess 

the appropriate amount of the initial filing fee which is statutorily required to initiate the 

prosecution of this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). For this reason, Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED.

II. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, also obligates 

the Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility 

who is 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” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays 

filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this 

provision of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a government entity,” and to 

dismiss those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 

443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). 

“The purpose of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need 

Case 3:17-cv-01071-DMS-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL

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

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)).

Regardless of whether Plaintiff paid the filing fee, or filed a properly supported 

Motion to Proceed IFP, however, a preliminary review of his Complaint shows this case 

is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it is 

duplicative of another civil action Plaintiff filed in the Southern District just three weeks 

before he filed this case. See Walters v. Sheriff, et al.., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:17-cv00902-GPC-JMA (“Walters I”) (ECF No. 1). A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in 

other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings 

have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it 

“merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 

1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and 

internal quotations omitted). In Walters I, Plaintiff alleged, as he does in this case, that 

several unidentified San Diego County Sheriff’s Department deputies, doctors, and 

“medical staff” provided him inadequate medical care and subjected him to a 

“demoralizing” strip search while he was in their custody in late April and early May 

2016. Compare S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-00902-GPC-JMA (ECF No. 1 at 2-7) 

with ECF No. 1 in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL (ECF No. 1 at 2-

10).

Because the allegations in Plaintiff’s current Complaint are factually similar, arose 

during the same two-week period of time, and are based on the same legal grounds as 

those he alleged against a similar group of “unknown” Sheriff’s Department officials in 

his previously filed Complaint in Walters I, the Court will dismiss this duplicative and 

subsequently filed civil case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 

1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 

Case 3:17-cv-01071-DMS-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:17-cv-1071-DMS-PCL

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

487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the second action is 

duplicative of the first, [the court must] examine whether the causes of action and relief 

sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on other 

grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons discussed, the Court:

1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a); 

2) DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1), but without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pursuit of the same claims as alleged 

in his previously filed civil action in Walters v. Sheriff, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 

17-cv-00902-GPC-JMA;1 and

3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would not be taken in good 

faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2017

 

1

 The Court notes that on May 11, 2017, Judge Curiel also denied Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Proceed IFP based on his failure to submit a certified copy of his prison trust account 

statements as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Walters v. Sheriff, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00902-GPC-JMA (ECF No. 3 at 3). While Judge Curiel granted Plaintiff 

leave to file a new, properly supported IFP Motion in that case, (id. at 4), he has yet to do 

so. But should he wish to proceed, Plaintiff must do so in that action, not this one.

Case 3:17-cv-01071-DMS-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5