Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00911/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00911-1/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

3:19-cv-00911-GPC-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

JOAQUIN FRAZIER,

Inmate #104607,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00911-GPC-BGS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

[ECF No. 3]

Plaintiff Joaquin Frazier, currently incarcerated Caddo Correctional Center in 

Shreveport, Louisiana, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil right complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 on May 13, 2019. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Frazier alleges the San Diego 

Police Department, Sheriff’s Office, and San Diego State Courts violated his constitutional 

rights by falsely arresting him in San Diego in 2014, and by physically assaulting him while 

he was held in pretrial custody in 2015. (Id. at 4-7.) He seeks $350 million in compensatory 

and punitive damages. (Id. at 8-12.)

I. Procedural History

On May 21, 2019, the Court dismissed Frazier’s case because he failed to prepay the 

$400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and did not file a Motion to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). However, the 

Case 3:19-cv-00911-GPC-BGS Document 4 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-00911-GPC-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

Court granted Frazier 45 days leave to fix these deficiencies, directed the Clerk of the Court 

to provide him with its approved form Motion to Proceed IFP, and cautioned that he must 

“include a certified copy of his prison trust account statements for the 6-month period 

preceding the filing of his Complaint,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. 

CivLR 3.2(b). (See ECF No. 2 at 3-4.)

On July 5, 2019, Frazier filed a Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3).

II. Motion to Proceed IFP

As Frazier now knows, 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 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 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Prisoners granted leave to proceed 

IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee by “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 

627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless 

of outcome. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2).

Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 

of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and 

demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 

2015). In support of this affidavit, section 1915(a)(2) also requires that prisoners, like 

Frazier, “seeking to bring a civil action ... without prepayment of fees ... shall 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) 

(emphasis added); see also Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). 

From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess 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), (b)(4). The institution having 

Case 3:19-cv-00911-GPC-BGS Document 4 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-00911-GPC-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

custody of the prisoner must collectsubsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding 

month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forward 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.

While Frazier has now filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, it fails to comply with 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) because it does not include a certified copy of his trust fund account 

statements, or an “institutional equivalent” issued by Caddo Correctional Center officials,

attesting as to his trust account activity and balances for the 6-month period preceding the 

filing of this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2.b. Without this 

accounting, the Court remains unable to fulfill its statutory duty to assess the appropriate 

amount of initial filing fee which may be required to further prosecute Frazier’s case. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3) is DENIED and the action is 

again DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required by 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

(2) Plaintiff is GRANTED an additional opportunity to correct his IFP 

deficiencies and an additional forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order in 

which to re-open his case by either: (a) paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative 

filing fee, or (b) filing a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, which must include a certified 

copy of his prison trust account statements for the 6-month period preceding the filing of 

his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b).2

 

 

2 Plaintiff is once again cautioned that if he chooses to proceed either by prepaying the full $400 civil 

filing fee, or by submitting a renewed and properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will

be screened before service and may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays or is obligated to pay filing fees. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but 

requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails 

to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 

Case 3:19-cv-00911-GPC-BGS Document 4 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-00911-GPC-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

(3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with one more 

Court-approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for 

his use and convenience. If Frazier neither pays the $400 filing fee in full nor sufficiently 

completes and files the attached Motion to Proceed IFP, together with a certified copy of 

his trust account statements within 30 days, this civil action will remain dismissed without 

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without further Order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2019

 

F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all 

complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity.”). 

Case 3:19-cv-00911-GPC-BGS Document 4 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4