Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01057/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01057-0/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

17cv1057

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

OMAR YASIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAPTAIN D. FLYNN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-01057-BAS-JLB

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEE

Plaintiff Omar Yasin, while detained at the San Diego County Sheriff’s 

Department’s George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) and proceeding pro se, has filed 

a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s 

Complaint is brief: he alleges Defendants are confining him and other San Diego County 

Jail and GBDF inmates in 3-man, 5x7 cells that are “inhumane.” (Id. at 2-3.) He seeks 

$33,000,000 in damages. (Id. at 3.)

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

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). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

Case 3:17-cv-01057-BAS-JLB Document 3 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv1057

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

(“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), 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 all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 

of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 

demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 

2015). In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must also 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); see also 

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). It is from the certified trust account 

statement that 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 he 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.

Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action, nor has he 

filed a motion to proceed IFP that includes both the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1) and the certified copies of his trust fund account statements required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Although he has submitted a GBDF “prison certificate” (ECF No. 2), 

this certificate, by itself, is insufficient to comply with § 1915’s additional requirements. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Cervantes, 493 

F.3d at 1051.

Case 3:17-cv-01057-BAS-JLB Document 3 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv1057

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

II. Screening Required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A

In addition, the Court cautions Plaintiff that if he chooses to proceed further by either 

pre-paying the full $400 civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported motion to 

proceed IFP, his Complaint will be screened before service upon any defendant and may 

be immediately dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

This screening will occur regardless of whether Plaintiff pays the full filing fee up front or 

is granted leave to proceed IFP and to pay it in monthly installments.1 See Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not 

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 

that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who 

are immune); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar 

screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity”).

The Court further cautions Plaintiff that if his Complaint is found to be frivolous or 

malicious, or if it fails to state a claim, its dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

and/or § 1915A(b) may later count as a third “strike” against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (“Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought 

 

1 The Court notes that as currently pled, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be subject to sua sponte 

dismissal regardless of whether he pays the full civil filing fee, or submits a properly 

supported motion to proceed IFP and pays it in installments. This is because allegations of 

overcrowding alone are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Balla v. Idaho 

State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 471 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 

U.S. 337, 348-49 (1981) (noting double-celling of inmates by itself does not inflict 

unnecessary or wanton pain or constitute grossly disproportionate punishment in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment). An overcrowding claim is cognizable only if the plaintiff 

alleges that crowding has caused an increase in violence, has reduced the provision of other 

constitutionally-required services, or has reached a level rendering the institution no longer 

fit for human habitation. See Balla, 869 F.2d at 471; Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1248–

49 (9th Cir. 1982) (noting that overcrowding itself is not an Eighth Amendment violation 

but can lead to specific effects that might violate the Constitution).

Case 3:17-cv-01057-BAS-JLB Document 3 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv1057

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

while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were dismissed on the ground that they were 

frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim.” (internal quotations omitted)). “Pursuant to 

§ 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP” unless the prisoner is 

in “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time the complaint is filed. Id.; see 

also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Williams, 775 F.3d at 1188 (citing Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1053).

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reason explained above, the Court:

(1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to pay the 

$400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and

(2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order to 

re-open this case by: (a) prepaying the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) in full; or (b) completing and filing a motion to proceed 

IFP that includes both the affidavit and the certified copies of his trust account statement 

for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1), (2) and Civil Local Rule 3.2(b).2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 1, 2017

 

2

If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee or file a properly supported 

Motion and Declaration in Support of his motion to proceed IFP, together with the trust 

account statements required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) within 45 days, this case will remain 

dismissed without prejudice based only on Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1914(a)’s fee requirements, and will not be counted as a “strike” against him pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case 3:17-cv-01057-BAS-JLB Document 3 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4