Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00214/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00214-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

TRAVIS BONDURANT,

Inmate Booking No. 13717960,

Civil No. 13cv0214 CAB (MDD)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING 

NO PARTIAL FILING FEE AND

GARNISHING $ 350 BALANCE

FROM PRISONER’S TRUST

ACCOUNT PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

[ECF No. 3]; 

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM AND

FOR SEEKING MONEY DAMAGES

AGAINST IMMUNE DEFENDANTS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)

vs.

GREG SEWELL; S. LAMIRAND;

J. MUGA; MATTHEW CATE,

Defendants.

Travis Bondurant (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently incarcerated at the George Bailey

Detention Facility located in San Diego, California, and proceeding in pro se, has filed this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee

mandated 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. 3]. 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0214-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 1 13cv0214 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00214-CAB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/02/13 Page 1 of 7
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 $350. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee

only if the plaintiff 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, prisoners granted leave to

proceed IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, 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).

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 six-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 must assess 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 must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of

the preceding month’s income, in any month in which the prisoner’s account exceeds $10, and

forward those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has no available funds from which to pay filing fees at this

time. 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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0214-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 2 13cv0214 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00214-CAB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/02/13 Page 2 of 7
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

available to him when payment is ordered.”). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion

to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 8] 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 shall be collected and forwarded

to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1).

III.

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

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

provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof,

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages fromdefendants who

are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-

27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(§ 1915A); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing

§ 1915A). 

“[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.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In addition, the Court’s

duty to liberally construe a pro se’s pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept.,

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). However, in giving liberal interpretation to a

pro se civil rights complaint, the court 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). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0214-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 3 13cv0214 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00214-CAB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/02/13 Page 3 of 7
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

are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id.

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person

acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived

the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S. Ct. 2117, 2122

(2004); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

B. Heck bar

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his parole was revoked due to claims that he had

violated the conditions of his parole. (See Compl. at 3-5.) Plaintiff disputes the claims that he

violated his parole and alleges that Defendants violated his right to due process and subjected

him to “unlawful imprisonment.” (Id.) However, these claims amount to an attack on the

constitutional validity of Plaintiff’s parole revocation, and as such, may not be maintained

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless and until he can show that his parole revocation has already

been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

“In any § 1983 action, the first question is whether § 1983 is the appropriate avenue to

remedy the alleged wrong.” Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1353 (9th Cir. 1985) (en

banc). A prisoner in state custody simply may not use a § 1983 civil rights action to challenge

the “fact or duration of his confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). The

prisoner must seek federal habeas corpus relief instead. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78

(2005) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 489). Thus, Plaintiff’s § 1983 action “is barred (absent

prior invalidation)--no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target

of his suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)--if success in that

action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson,

544 U.S. at 82. 

In this case, Plaintiff’s claims “necessarily imply the invalidity” of his parole revocation

and subsequent incarceration. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In creating the favorable termination rule

in Heck, the Supreme Court relied on “the hoary principle that civil tort actions are not

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0214-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 4 13cv0214 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00214-CAB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/02/13 Page 4 of 7
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

appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.” Heck, 511

U.S. at 486. This is precisely what Plaintiff attempts to accomplish here. Therefore, to satisfy

Heck’s “favorable termination” rule, Plaintiff must first allege facts which show that the parole

revocation which forms the basis of his § 1983 Complaint has already been: (1) reversed on

direct appeal; (2) expunged by executive order; (3) declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized

to make such a determination; or (4) called into question by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 (emphasis added); see also Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1025 (9th

Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges no facts sufficient to satisfy Heck. Thus, a suit for

money damages based on his parole revocation is not yet cognizable. Accordingly, because

Plaintiff seeks damages for allegedly unconstitutional criminal proceedings, and because he has

not shown that his parole revocation has been invalidated, either by way of direct appeal, state

habeas or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a section 1983 claim for damages cannot be maintained,

see Heck, 512 U.S. at 489-90, and his Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice. See

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that an action barred

by Heck has not yet accrued and thus, must be dismissed without prejudice so that the plaintiff

may reassert his § 1983 claims if he ever succeeds in invalidating the underlying conviction or

sentence); accord Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir. 1997).

B. Immunity

Plaintiff also names J. Muga, Board of Prison Hearings Commissioner, as a Defendant. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Muga presided over his revocation proceedings and ordered

Plaintiff’s parole to be revoked. (See Compl. at 1.) However, state parole officials are immune

from damages actions based on any decision to “‘grant, deny, or revoke parole’ because those

tasks are ‘functionally comparable’ to tasks performed by judges.” See Swift v. California, 834

F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted.).

C. Respondeat Superior claims

Plaintiff names Matthew Cate, former Secretary for the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, as a Defendant in this matter but fails to set forth any specific

factual allegations with regard to this Defendant in the body of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Thus, it

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0214-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 5 13cv0214 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00214-CAB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/02/13 Page 5 of 7
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

appears that Plaintiff seeks to hold this Defendant liable in his supervisory capacity. However,

there is no respondeat superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d

1433, 1437-38 (9th Cir. 1993). Instead, “[t]he inquiry into causation must be individualized and

focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are

alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th

Cir. 1988) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976)). In order to avoid the

respondeat superior bar, Plaintiff must allege personal acts by each individual Defendant which

have a direct causal connection to the constitutional violation at issue. See Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Supervisory prison officials may only be held liable for the

allegedly unconstitutional violations of a subordinate if Plaintiff sets forth allegations which

show: (1) how or to what extent they personally participated in or directed a subordinate’s

actions, and (2) in either acting or failing to act, they were an actual and proximate cause of the

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.

1978). As currently pleaded, however, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth facts which might

be liberally construed to support an individualized constitutional claim against Defendant Cate.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted and for seeking monetary damages against immune Defendants pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Resnick, 213 F.3d

at 446, n.1. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 3] is

GRANTED. 

2. The Watch Commander for George Bailey Detention Facility, or his designee,

shall collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the 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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0214-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 6 13cv0214 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00214-CAB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/02/13 Page 6 of 7
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

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 Watch

Commander, George Bailey Detention Facility, 446 Alta Road, Suite 5300, San Diego,

California 92158.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty five (45) days leave

from the date this Order is “Filed” in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all

the deficiencies of pleading noted above. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in

itself without reference to the superseded pleading. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 15.1. Defendants

not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been

waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, if Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it may be dismissed without

further leave to amend and may hereafter be counted as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996). 

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a form § 1983 complaint to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 2, 2013

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0214-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 7 13cv0214 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00214-CAB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/02/13 Page 7 of 7