Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01913/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01913-1/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-01913-GPC-KSC

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 L. NELSON, 

aka JAMAL MYXZ,

Booking #17145564,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

[ECF No. 3]

ROBERT L. NELSON (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at George Bailey Detention 

Facility (“GBDF”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, initiated this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 19, 2017 (ECF No. 1). While 

devoid of specifics, Plaintiff’s original Complaint alleged he had been “attacked” by the 

Imperial Beach Sheriff’s Department, and had been defamed and detained by them 

through the use of drugged and diseased informants who used “unlawful advantage” to 

“gain entry to [his] residence.” (Id. at 1-3.)

I. Procedural Background

On October 4, 2017, the Court dismissed the case because Plaintiff failed to prepay 

the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and did not file a Motion to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). A week 

Case 3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC Document 6 Filed 01/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

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

later, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which was accepted for filing 

as a matter of course pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff’s FAC no 

longer names the City of Imperial Beach or its Sheriff’s Department as Defendants; it 

instead alleges two San Diego Superior Court Judges, Plaintiff’s public defender, and an 

Imperial Beach Sheriff’s Department deputy violated his Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights, as well as his right to “universal male sufferage,” by unlawfully 

arresting, representing, harassing, and detaining him. (ECF No. 5 at 2-5). Plaintiff’s FAC

seeks damages and injunctive relief related to his ongoing criminal proceedings and 

demands his immediate release. (Id. at 7.)

II. 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.

 

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-01913-GPC-KSC Document 6 Filed 01/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

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 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 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 now filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a), he has not attached a certified copy of his prison 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 trust account statements, 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).

III. Conclusion and Order

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3) is DENIED and the action is 

again DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required by 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

///

Case 3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC Document 6 Filed 01/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

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

(2) Plaintiff is GRANTED an additional forty-five (45) days from the date of 

this Order in which to re-open this case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and 

administrative filing fee, or (2) filing a new Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes a 

certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of 

his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2(b).2 

(3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with another

Court-approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” in 

this matter. If Plaintiff neither pays the $400 filing fee in full nor sufficiently completes 

and files the attached Motion to Proceed IFP, together with a certified copy of his trust 

account statement within 45 days, this action will remained dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without further Order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2018

 

2 Plaintiff is again cautioned that if he chooses to proceed either by prepaying the full $400 

civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his FAC (ECF 

No. 5), filed on November 2, 2017, and which supersedes his original pleading, see S.D.

CAL. CIVLR 15.1, will be screened before service and may be dismissed sua sponte 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether 

he pays or is obligated to pay filing fees. 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); see also 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.”). 

Case 3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC Document 6 Filed 01/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4