Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01264/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01264-0/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

18cv1264

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

ABONILICO CARROLL,

CDCR #AX-2101,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O MILLER; W/O WRIGHT; CHIEF 

MEDICAL OFFICER

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-1264-BAS-PCL

ORDER:

1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

[Doc. No. 2]; AND

2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 

EFFECT SERVICE PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND

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

Abonilico Carroll (“Plaintiff”) is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California. He is proceeding pro se, and has 

filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1, Compl.) Plaintiff 

did not prepay the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing. 

Instead, he has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.)

Case 3:18-cv-01264-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 07/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

18cv1264

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 IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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); Rodriguez v. 

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to 

proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” 

Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 

(9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) & (2).

Section 1915(a)(2) 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 3:18-cv-01264-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 07/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

18cv1264

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 copy of his CDCR Inmate 

Statement Report and a Prison Certificate signed by a RJD accounting officer attesting to 

his balances and deposits over the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. 

(See ECF No. 2 at 4–7); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2; Andrews, 

398 F.3d at 1119. These statements show that Plaintiff has had almost no money in his 

trust account for the 6-months preceding the filing of this action, and that he had a zero 

balance at the time of filing. (See ECF No. 4 at 4, 7); see also 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.”); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 630.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2), 

declines to “exact” any initial filing fee because his trust account statement shows he “has 

no means to pay it,” Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629, and directs the Secretary of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to collect the entire $350 balance 

of the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and forward them to the Clerk of the Court 

pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

II. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 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 requires a preanswer screening which the Court conducts sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

and § 1915A(b). Under these statutes, the Court must 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 

Case 3:18-cv-01264-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 07/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

18cv1264

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

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

“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 contextspecific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and 

common sense.” Id. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or “unadorned, the defendantunlawfully-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).

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations

In August 2018, Plaintiff was “discharged from U.C.S.D. Hospital after major 

surgery (urethral reconstruction)” back to RJD. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) As a result of this 

surgery, Plaintiff could not climb any stairs. Id. When he informed Defendants Miller and 

Wright that he was unable to walk up stairs to his cell, he claims Defendants “threatened” 

him by telling him he would be housed in administrative segregation if he did not climb 

the stairs. Id. Plaintiff was “helped” by another inmate “to get to his cell safely.” Id. 

However, days later when Plaintiff “had to get his medicine,” and this inmate was not 

available to help him, Plaintiff “fell down a flight of stairs” injuring his “neck, back, and 

head.” Id. Plaintiff was “transported to Central Health” by ambulance. Id. Plaintiff was 

then issued a “lower tier, lower bunk chrono,” along with a “wheelchair, cane, and back 

Case 3:18-cv-01264-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 07/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

18cv1264

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

brace.” Id. Plaintiff contends Defendants acted with “deliberate indifference” to his 

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by failing to accommodate his 

medical needs.

As currently pleaded, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint contains factual 

content 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), because it alleges Eighth 

Amendment claims which are plausible on its face. See Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1123; Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (prison officials’ deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment). Accordingly, the Court will direct the U.S. 

Marshal to effect service upon the named Defendants 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 & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court:

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

(ECF No. 2);

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

Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by garnishing monthly 

payments from his account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding 

month’s income and forwarding those payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the 

amount in the account exceeds $10 pursuant to 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 3:18-cv-01264-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 07/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

18cv1264

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 named 

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

a certified copy of his Complaint and the summons so that he may serve the named 

Defendants. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must complete the Form 285s 

as completely and accurately as possible, include an address where each named Defendant 

may be found and/or subject to service pursuant to S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 4.1c. 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 and summons 

upon the named 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 the named and served Defendants 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,” the defendant is required to respond); 

and,

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

serve upon the named 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 

Case 3:18-cv-01264-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 07/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

18cv1264

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

has been was served on Defendants or their counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. 

Cal. Civ. L.R. 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 Defendants may be 

disregarded. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 16, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01264-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 07/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7