Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00457/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00457-0/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

3:16-cv-0457-LAB-DHB

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

ROBERT McCULLOCK,

CDCR #V-32182,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R. STEVEN THARRATT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-0457-LAB-DHB

ORDER:

1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

[ECF No. 2];

2) DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL [ECF No. 3];

AND

2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS AND 

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) [ECF No. 5]

ROBERT McCULLOCK (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Richard J. 

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

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to 

Case 3:16-cv-00457-LAB-DHB Document 6 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

3:16-cv-0457-LAB-DHB

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

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2), a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 

3), and a Motion for Issuance of Summons (ECF No. 5).

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 

$400.1 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, __ U. S. __, 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); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 

2002).

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 

 

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. Dec. 1, 2014). The additional $50 administrative fee does 

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

Case 3:16-cv-00457-LAB-DHB Document 6 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

3:16-cv-0457-LAB-DHB

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

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.

In support of his IFP motion, Plaintiff has submitted certified copies of his prison 

trust account statements, and a prison certificate, verified by an accounting officer at 

RJD, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. See ECF No. 2 at 4, 

6-7; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. This financial information shows that Plaintiff has had 

no monthly deposits, carried no balance in his trust account during the 6-month period 

preceding the filing of this action, and had an available balance of zero at the time of 

filing. Therefore, the Court assesses no initial partial filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) because it appears Plaintiff is unable to pay any initial fee. 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.”); 

Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 630; 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.”). 

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

declines to “exact” any initial filing fee because his prison certificate 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”), or his designee, to collect the 

entire $350 balance of the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and to forward them 

to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). See id.

II. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff 

claims he is indigent, imprisoned, and will require assistance investigating and 

“elicit[ing] the facts from witnesses and experts.” See id. at 1-3.

Case 3:16-cv-00457-LAB-DHB Document 6 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

3:16-cv-0457-LAB-DHB

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

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social 

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district 

courts have some limited discretion to “request” that an attorney represent an indigent 

civil litigant. Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 

However, this discretion may be exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; 

see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A finding of exceptional 

circumstances requires “an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the 

merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn 

v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 3) without prejudice because, as 

discussed below, it appears Plaintiff is capable of articulating the factual basis for his 

claims, and the likelihood of his success on the merits is not at all yet clear at this 

preliminary stage of the proceedings. Id. Therefore, neither the interests of justice nor any 

exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

III. Initial Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s IFP status or the payment of any filing fees, the PLRA 

also requires 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 any complaint, or any portion of a complaint, 

which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks 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)).

Case 3:16-cv-00457-LAB-DHB Document 6 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

3:16-cv-0457-LAB-DHB

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

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. Bd. of Regents of 

the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff alleges various medical officials employed by both California 

Correctional Health Care Services and RJD acted with deliberate indifference to his 

serious medical needs by failing to notify him and take action after an outside specialist

recommended he undergo a skin cancer biopsy in early 2015 (ECF No. 1 at 10-15). As 

currently pled, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint contains Eighth Amendment claims

sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the sua sponte screening 

Case 3:16-cv-00457-LAB-DHB Document 6 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

3:16-cv-0457-LAB-DHB

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

required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). See Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). Deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of an 

inmate constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. See 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976). “To demonstrate deliberate indifference, 

‘plaintiffs must show that [prison officials] were (a) subjectively aware of the serious 

medical need and (b) failed to adequately respond.’” Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 

1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Conn v. City of Reno, 591 F.3d 1081, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010), 

vacated, 563 U.S. 915 (2011), reinstated in relevant part, 658 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2011)).

Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Summons 

(ECF No. 5) and direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon the 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 and Orders

Good cause appearing, 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.

4. DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3);

Case 3:16-cv-00457-LAB-DHB Document 6 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

3:16-cv-0457-LAB-DHB

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

5. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Summons (ECF No. 5) and 

DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) upon 

Defendants 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, 

a certified copy of his Complaint (ECF No. 1), and the summons so that he may serve the 

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

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

according to the instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying his IFP 

package;

6. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons 

upon 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);

7. ORDERS 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

8. 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 3:16-cv-00457-LAB-DHB Document 6 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

3:16-cv-0457-LAB-DHB

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 Defendants may be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2016

HON. LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00457-LAB-DHB Document 6 Filed 05/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8