Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02475/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02475-0/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

3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

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

KENNETH WILLIAMS,

CDCR #J-17517,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. PARAMO, Warden; 

R. BROWN, Community Resource 

Manager; E. GARZA, Captain; 

IMAM KAHN, Chaplain,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

ORDER: 

1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

[ECF No. 2] 

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)

KENNETH WILLIAMS (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the California 

Medical Facility (“CMF”) in Vacaville, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1.

Plaintiff claims several prison officials at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 

(“RJD”), in San Diego, California, violated his right to free exercise of religion and equal 

protection of the laws by failing to permit him to participate in Ramadan in May 2017, 

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 02/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

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 he was incarcerated at RJD. See id. at 2-4. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief 

preventing “prisoners” from facilitating Islamic services,1as well as general and punitive 

damages “to be determined.” Id. at 7.

Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence 

a civil action at the time he filed suit; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 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 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The 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 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, __ S. Ct. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 

F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), 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).

///

 

1 While Plaintiff does not specify the scope of the injunctive relief he seeks, see ECF No. 

1 at 7, any request for injunctive or other equitable relief related to RJD’s policies or 

practices have been rendered moot by his transfer to CMF. See Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 

1130, 1138 (9th Cir. 2013) (“When an inmate challenges prison conditions at a particular 

correctional facility, but has been transferred from the facility and has no reasonable 

expectation of returning, his claim [for injunctive relief] is moot.”) (citing Johnson v. 

Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991)). In such circumstances, claims for injunctive 

relief are moot because the prisoner “‘no longer is subjected to [the allegedly 

unconstitutional] policies.’” Id. (quoting Johnson, 948 F.3d at 519); see also Dilley v. 

Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1372 (9th Cir. 1995).

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 02/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

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

Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to 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); 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); 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.

In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his CDCR Inmate 

Statement Report, see ECF No. 2 at 6-7, together with a prison certificate completed by 

an accounting official at CMF attesting to his trust account activity. Id. at 5; see also 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. These statements

show that Plaintiff had an average monthly balance of $9.02, and average monthly 

deposits of $9.38 to his account over the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing 

of his Complaint, but an available balance of zero at the time of filing. Based on this 

financial information, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 

2), and assesses his initial partial filing fee to be $1.87 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1).

However, the Court will direct the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to 

collect this initial fee only if sufficient funds are available in Plaintiff’s account at the 

time this Order is executed. 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.”); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 630; Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 02/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

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

(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.”). The remaining balance of the $350 total fee owed in 

this case must be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1).

II. Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s IFP status or the payment of any filing fees, the PLRA 

also requires 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 

statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any complaint, or any portion of a complaint, 

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

who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b); Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 

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

All complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). 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 Atlantic 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 Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 02/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

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

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(“[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.”); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that 

§ 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”).

However, while the court “ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, 

particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the 

petitioner the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 

2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)), it may not 

“supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of 

the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint contains free exercise 

of religion and equal protection claims 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 v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); Hartmann v. 

Cal. Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122-24 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing 

pleading requirements for prisoner’s free exercise of religion and equal protection

claims).

Accordingly, the Court will direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon the 

Defendants on Plaintiff’s behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall 

issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); FED. R. CIV. P.

4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or 

deputy marshal . . . if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915.”).

III. Conclusion and Orders

Good cause appearing, the Court: 

1. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

(ECF No. 2).

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 02/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

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. ORDERS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from 

Plaintiff’s trust account the $1.87 initial filing fee assessed, if those funds are available at 

the time this Order is executed, and to forward whatever balance remains of the full $350 

owed in monthly payments in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding 

month’s income to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account 

exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS MUST 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.

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, include an address where each named Defendant may be 

served, see S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1.c, 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 Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285 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 Defendants, once served, to reply to Plaintiff’s Complaint within 

the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant may occasionally be permitted to “waive

the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other 

correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte 

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 02/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS

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

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a 

preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a 

“reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” defendant is required to respond); and

7. ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to 

serve upon 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 Defendants’ counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 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 the Defendants, may be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 02/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7