Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02789/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02789-0/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

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

SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON, 

Booking #15746252, Civil No. 15-cv-2789 WQH (KSC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL

ACTION:

1) FOR FAILING TO PAY 

FILING FEES REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR 

FAILING TO FILE A MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

AND

2) FOR FAILING TO FILE A

COMPLAINT THAT ALLEGES

FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION PURSUANT 

TO FED. R. CIV. P. 3, FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1)-(3) AND FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3)

 vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

Sedric Eugene Johnson (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at the George Bailey

Detention Facility in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a

pleading with the Court on San Diego County Sheriff’s Department inmate stationary,

which while not altogether clear, appears to contain allegations of excessive force as

well as “due process” violations related to the manner in which his correspondence,

-1- 15cv2789 WQH (KSC)

Case 3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC Document 8 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 6
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 in San Diego County Sheriff’s Department custody, has been “withheld, read,

and misplaced.” See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1, 4. Plaintiff identifies no individual

Sheriff’s Department officials as Defendants.

Because Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, the Court liberally construed

his pleading as an attempt to commence a civil action, and assigned it Civil Case No.

3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d

621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (where a plaintiff appears in propria persona, the Court must

construe his pleadings liberally and afford plaintiff any benefit of the doubt).

I. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS

 However, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any

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).1

 An action may proceed

despite a party’s failure to pay this filing fee only if the party is granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“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). 

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to

commence a civil action, and while he has submitted two subsequent documents

which indicate he wishes to proceed IFP based on his “inability to provide the $400

filing fee,” see ECF Nos. 5, 7, he has yet to file a Motion to Proceed IFP in

compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, no civil action can yet proceed. See

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.

II. INITIAL REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S PLEADING

“The first step in a civil action in a United States district court is the filing of [a]

complaint with the clerk or the judge.” 4 Wright, Miller, Kane, Marcus & Steinman,

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. Dec. 1, 2014). The additional $50 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

-2- 15cv2789 WQH (KSC)

Case 3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC Document 8 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 6
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

FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 1052 (3d ed. 2002 & Supp. 2014); FED.R.CIV.P. 3 (“A

civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”) (emphasis added).

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), a complaint must contain: “(1) a short and plain

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” . . . (2) a short and plain

statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief

sought.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). 

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s

jurisdiction “must neither be disregarded nor evaded.” Moore v. Maricopa County

Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co.

v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978)). The Court must determine sua sponte whether it

has subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116

(9th Cir. 2004). See also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time

that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

 Here, while it appears from Plaintiff’s initial pleading, as well as from a letter

and additional documents he submitted on January 4, 2016, and January 7, 2016 (ECF

Nos. 5, 7), that he may wish to file a civil action challenging the confinement or the

conditions under which he is currently being held, his initial pleading does not

currently allege subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 28 U.S.C.

§ 1343(a)(3). See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2005)

(“The court will not . . . infer allegations supporting federal jurisdiction; federal

subject matter [jurisdiction] must always be affirmatively alleged.”). Thus, because

Plaintiff’s pleadings fail to allege federal jurisdiction or “state[] a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted), his

action must be dismissed. See Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir.

2011) (noting court’s obligation under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to “review,

before docketing or as soon thereafter as practicable, any civil action brought by a

prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity, officer or employee,” and its

requirement to dismiss complaints or any portion thereof that are “frivolous,

-3- 15cv2789 WQH (KSC)

Case 3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC Document 8 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 6
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

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seek[ing]

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),

(b)).

Because Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, however, and his submissions

indicate a desire to initiate a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court will

sua sponte grant him an opportunity to amend. As noted above, however, Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. “Each

allegation [in a pleading] must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is

required.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). 

 In addition, Plaintiff is cautioned that if he files an Amended Complaint, it will

be subject to an initial sua sponte screening and that it will be dismissed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (because he is a prisoner) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (if he files

a motion to proceed IFP) for failing to state a claim unless it contains factual matter

sufficient to plausibly show that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the

United States was violated; and (2) the alleged violation was committed by a person

acting under color of state law. Campbell v. Washington Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 671 F.3d

837, 842 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983

suits,” he must also plead that each Government-official defendant he wishes to sue,

“through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal,

556 U.S. at 676 (emphasis added). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. “Under this rule, a claim must

contain ‘more than labels and conclusions’ or a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements

of the cause of action.’” Sheppard v. Evans & Assoc., 694 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir.

2012) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

/ / /

/ / /

-4- 15cv2789 WQH (KSC)

Case 3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC Document 8 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 6
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

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons explained above, the Court hereby:

(1) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s

failure to pay the $400 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), failure to file a

Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and his failure to file a

Complaint which alleges federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.

3, 8(a)(1)-(3), and 12(h)(3);

(2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order

to re-open the case by: (a) prepaying the entire $400 civil filing fee in full; or

(b) completing and filing a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of

his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his

Complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2(b); and (c) filing an

Amended Complaint that conforms with Rule 8; and

(3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with this Court’s: 1)

form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis”

and its 2) form “Complaint under the Civil Rights Act pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983”

for Plaintiff’s use and convenience. If Plaintiff chooses to proceed with a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must title his new pleading as his “First

Amended Complaint,” include Civil Case No. 15-cv-2789 WQH (KSC) in its caption,

and otherwise comply with FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a), by naming each individual party he

wishes to sue.2

 

/ / /

2

 The Court has previously accepted several of Plaintiff’s submissions for filing despite their failures to comply with the Court’s Local Rules, in light of his pro se status. See ECF Nos. 2-7; Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623. Nevertheless, “[p]ro se litigants must

follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, Plaintiff is hereby cautioned that S.D. Cal. Local Civil Rule 83.9 provides that “attorneys or parties to any action must refrain from writing letters to the judge,” and any additional letter he submits in violation of Local Rule 83.9

may be rejected for filing in this case.

-5- 15cv2789 WQH (KSC)

Case 3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC Document 8 Filed 02/01/16 Page 5 of 6
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

If Plaintiff fails to comply with these directions within the time provided, this

civil action will remain dismissed without prejudice for the reasons set forth in this

Order and without any further action by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 1, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

-6- 15cv2789 WQH (KSC)

Case 3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC Document 8 Filed 02/01/16 Page 6 of 6