Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01310/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01310-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 05:0552fi Freedom of Information Act

---

1

16-CV-1310 JLS (BGS)

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

DAVID SCOTT HARRISON,

CDCR #T-53894,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEYS;

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-1310 JLS (BGS)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS, AND

(2) 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 Nos. 1, 2)

Plaintiff David Scott Harrison is proceeding pro se and is currently incarcerated at 

San Quentin State Prison. He has filed an action pursuant to the Freedom of Information 

Act (Compl., ECF No. 1), and a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (IFP Mot., ECF No. 2).

IFP MOTION

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 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01310-JLS-BGS Document 3 Filed 07/21/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

16-CV-1310 JLS (BGS)

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

$400.

1

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite the 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, if the plaintiff is a prisoner and he 

is granted leave to proceed IFP, he nevertheless remains obligated to pay the entire fee in 

“increments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); 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).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 

a prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must also submit a “certified copy of the trust fund 

account statement (or institutional equivalent) 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 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); Taylor, 

281 F.3d at 850. 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 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); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629.

In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of his trust 

account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Civil Local Rule 3.2. Andrews, 

398 F.3d at 1119. This statement shows Plaintiff has had no monthly deposits to his 

account, has carried no balance over the six month period preceding the filing of his 

 

1

 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, all parties filing civil actions on or after May 1, 2013, 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) (eff. May 1, 2013). However, the additional $50 administrative fee is 

waived if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

Case 3:16-cv-01310-JLS-BGS Document 3 Filed 07/21/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

16-CV-1310 JLS (BGS)

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

Complaint, and that his current available balance is zero. (ECF No. 2 at 5; see also 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (“In 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 available 

to him when payment is ordered.”).)

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (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). See id.

INITIAL SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(E)(2) AND 1915A

Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his complaint requires a preanswer screening pursuant to 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 from 

defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b); Rhodes v. 

Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)); Lopez 

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing § 1915(e)(2)) (en banc). “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 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. 

Case 3:16-cv-01310-JLS-BGS Document 3 Filed 07/21/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

16-CV-1310 JLS (BGS)

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

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.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. 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 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 

969 (9th Cir. 2009).

The Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint 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). See Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1123; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

CONCLUSION

Good cause appearing, the Court: 

1. GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (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 3:16-cv-01310-JLS-BGS Document 3 Filed 07/21/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

16-CV-1310 JLS (BGS)

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 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 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;

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

upon the 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 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 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 Defendants or their counsel, and the date of that service. See 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 21, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01310-JLS-BGS Document 3 Filed 07/21/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5