Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02601/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02601-0/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

3:16-cv-2601-LAB-PCL

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

JOSE INIGUEZ,

CDCR #J-36853,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PATRICIA NEWTON,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-2601-LAB-PCL

ORDER:

1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

[ECF No. 2]

AND

3) 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)

JOSE INIGUEZ (“Plaintiff”), is proceeding pro se, is currently incarcerated at 

Calipatria State Prison (“CAL”) and has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). 

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

time of filing, but instead has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).

///

Case 3:16-cv-02601-LAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:16-cv-2601-LAB-PCL

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

I. 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 

$400.1 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, __ U.S. __, 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).

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); 

 

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 3:16-cv-02601-LAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:16-cv-2601-LAB-PCL

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

Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629.

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

Statement Report and a prison certificate authorized by a CAL official attesting to his 

trust account activity. See ECF No. 2 at 4-7; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR

3.2; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. These statements show Plaintiff has had no monthly 

deposits to his account, has carried no balance over the six month period preceding the 

filing of his Complaint, and that his current available balance is zero (ECF No. 2 at 4, 7). 

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 (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 Motion to Proceed IFP, 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.

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

A. Standard of Review

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 

statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of 

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

who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:16-cv-02601-LAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:16-cv-2601-LAB-PCL

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

2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “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. 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.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “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” or 

“unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting 

this plausibility standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009).

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff claims Defendant Patricia Newton, his “primary care provider” at CAL, 

denied him adequate medical care and retaliated against him for filing administrative 

appeals related to his medical care. (ECF No. 1 at 2, 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges to 

have undergone several orthopedic surgeries to remove “bony tumors” in both feet. 

Plaintiff claims the surgery to his right foot was successful, but the surgery to his left, 

which took place on May 28, 2015, was not and left him in severe pain and “deformed.” 

Case 3:16-cv-02601-LAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:16-cv-2601-LAB-PCL

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

(Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff claims Newton told him to “man up” after the surgery, denied him 

adequate pain medication, as well as a disability vest, and later confiscated his crutches. 

(Id. at 4.) After Plaintiff appealed, he alleges to have again been interviewed by Newton 

who was “very angry.” Plaintiff claims Newton prescribed anti-depressants and 

orthopedic shoes; but she refused pain medication and a cane, in contravention to 

Plaintiff’s surgeon’s recommendations. (Id. at 3-5.)

Based on these allegations, 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 v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th 

Cir. 2012; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976) (prison 

officials are liable if they act with deliberate indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical 

needs); id. at 104 (deliberate indifference “is manifested by prison [officials] intentionally 

denying or delaying access to medical care,” or “intentionally interfering with the 

treatment once prescribed” by a physician); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 

(9th Cir. 2005) (First Amendment retaliation claim requires prisoner to allege: “(1) ... a 

state actor took some adverse action against [him] (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s 

protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First 

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 

correctional goal.”).

Therefore, the Court will order U.S. Marshal service 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 Order

For the reasons explained, the Court: 

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

(ECF No. 2);

Case 3:16-cv-02601-LAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:16-cv-2601-LAB-PCL

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. 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 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 

Defendant PATRICIA NEWTON. 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 Defendant NEWTON. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must 

complete the Form 285 as completely and accurately as possible, include an address 

where Defendant NEWTON may be found and/or subject to service, and return it 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 Defendant NEWTON 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 Defendant NEWTON 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 

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

Case 3:16-cv-02601-LAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:16-cv-2601-LAB-PCL

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

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 Defendant NEWTON, or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon 

Defendant’s 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 Defendant or her 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 Defendant NEWTON, or 

her counsel, may be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017

HON. LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02601-LAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7