Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02456/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02456-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv2456-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -1- 11cv2456 WQH (BGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDRIC BLACK, II,

Inmate Booking No. 11144445

Civil No. 11cv2456 WQH (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

GARNISHING BALANCE FROM

INMATE’S TRUST ACCOUNT

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a);

and 

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO

 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

vs.

UNITED STATES MARSHALS;

U.S. MARSHAL (Unknown), 

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Cedric Black, currently housed at the George Bailey Detention Facility, has

filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion

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

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.

Case 3:11-cv-02456-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv2456-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -2- 11cv2456 WQH (BGS)

§ 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).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), and that he has attached a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D.CAL.CIVLR 3.2. Plaintiff’s trust account statement shows that

he has no available funds from which to pay filing fees at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] and assesses no

initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the entire $350 balance of the

filing fee 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).

II. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A

A. Standard

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, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion

thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages from

defendants 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).

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is

frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

Case 3:11-cv-02456-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv2456-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -3- 11cv2456 WQH (BGS)

324 (1989). However 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing

an IFP or prisoner’s suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of

the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 (“[S]ection

1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

that fails to state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 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).

A. Bivens Action

As an initial matter, the Court notes that while Plaintiff purportedly brings this action

under § 1983, the Court will liberally construe his claims to arise under Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) because Plaintiff claims violations of his

civil rights by a federal actors. Bivens established that “compensable injury to a constitutionally

protected interest [by federal officials alleged to have acted under color of federal law] could be

vindicated by a suit for damages invoking the general federal question jurisdiction of the federal

courts [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331].” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 486 (1978). “Actions

under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under

§ 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991).

 To state a private cause of action under Bivens, Plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right

secured by the Constitution of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was

committed by a federal actor. Id.; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 624

(9th Cir. 1988). Bivens provides that “federal courts have the inherent authority to award

damages against federal officials to compensate plaintiffs for violations of their constitutional

Case 3:11-cv-02456-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv2456-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -4- 11cv2456 WQH (BGS)

rights.” Western Center for Journalism v. Cederquist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000).

However, a Bivens action may only be brought against the responsible federal official in his or

her individual capacity. Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1988). In his

Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to sue the United States Marshal Service which is an agency of the

government. (See Compl. at 1.) However, Bivens does not authorize a suit against the

government or its agencies for monetary relief. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994);

Thomas-Lazear v. FBI, 851 F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 1988); Daly- Murphy, 837 F.2d at 355.

Accordingly, the Court must DISMISS the claims against the United States Marshal Service for

failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Court does find that Plaintiff has stated a claim against the sole remaining Defendant,

“unknown” U.S. Marshal Agent. However, Plaintiff has provided no information by which the

Court could direct the U.S. Marshal’s Service to effect service of the Complaint. Plaintiff must

provide more description of the “unknown” Agent in order that the matter can proceed. Plaintiff

will be given leave to file an Amended Complaint to correct this deficiency. 

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. 2] is

GRANTED.

2. The Watch Commander, 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 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.

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-02456-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/14/11 Page 4 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\11cv2456-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -5- 11cv2456 WQH (BGS)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b).

However, Plaintiff is further 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

his previous pleading. See S.D.CAL.CIVLR 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not realleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a Court approved form civil rights complaint

to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02456-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/14/11 Page 5 of 5