Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00816/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00816-0/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

1

 The proceedings were assigned to this Court, but have been referred to Magistrate Judge Peter

C. Lewis by Local Rule 72.3(e), “Assignment of § 1983 Prisoner Civil Cases to United States

Magistrate Judges,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

1 07cv0816

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KURT A. WILLMAN,

CDC #J-00074,

Civil

No. 07-0816 JM (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING NO INITIAL FILING

FEE, GARNISHING BALANCE

FROM PRISONER’S TRUST

ACCOUNT [Doc. No. 4];

AND 

(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL

TO EFFECT SERVICE

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.

4(c)(2) AND 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

ROBERT HERNANDEZ; DR. HUNT;

DR. KINJI L. HAWTHORNE;

CYNTHIA DUHON and N. GRANNIS, 

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison located

in Soledad, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff alleges that, while he was housed at the Richard J.

Donovan Correctional Facility (“Donovan”), jail officials unnecessarily delayed in

Case 3:07-cv-00816-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/25/07 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

2 07cv0816

providing him with prescription eyeglass in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to

adequate medical care. As a result, Plaintiff suffered “blinding headaches” and blurred

vision.

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 4].

I. Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 4]

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. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to

prepay the entire fee only if that party 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).

Prisoners granted leave to proceed IFP however, 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); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).

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 indicates that he has insufficient funds from which to pay filing fees

at this time. 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.”). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP

[Doc. No. 4] and assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

However, the entire $350 balance of the filing fees 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). 

////

Case 3:07-cv-00816-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/25/07 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

3 07cv0816

II. Sua Sponte Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A

The PLRA also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons

proceeding IFP and 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 prisoner and all other IFP

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; 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).

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations, if presumed true as they must at

this stage of review, are sufficient to survive the initial screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). See Compl. at 3-10; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27 (9th Cir.

2000) (“The language of section 1915(e)(2), as it applies to dismissals for failure to state

a claim, ‘parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).’”) quoting

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); Resnick, 200 F.3d at 644

(when conducting sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, court must construe

pro se pleadings liberally). However, Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening

and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule

12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481

F.Supp.2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No.

4] is GRANTED.

Case 3:07-cv-00816-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/25/07 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

4 07cv0816

2. The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,

or his designee, is ordered to collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance

of the filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account

in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income credited

to the account 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 James

Tilton, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box

942883, Sacramento, California 94283-0001.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. The Clerk shall issue the summons, provide Plaintiff with a certified copy

of both this Order and his Complaint, and forward them to Plaintiff along with a blank

U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each Defendant named in his Complaint. Plaintiff shall

complete the Form 285s and forward them to the United States Marshal. The U.S.

Marshal shall then serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon Defendants as

directed by Plaintiff on each U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be

advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2).

5. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to the 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 Defendants 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

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,” Defendants are required to respond).

Case 3:07-cv-00816-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/25/07 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

5 07cv0816

6. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper

to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and

correct copy of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and

the date of service. Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the

Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 25, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:07-cv-00816-JM-PCL Document 5 Filed 06/25/07 Page 5 of 5