Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01015/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01015-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv1015-grantIFP&serve.wpd -1- 08cv1015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE R. HENSLEE,

CDCR #T-93490,

Civil No. 08-1015 IEG (LSP)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING NO INITIAL PARTIAL

FILING FEE, GARNISHING $350

FROM PRISONER’S TRUST

ACCOUNT [Doc. No. 2];

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 4] and

(3) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO

EFFECT SERVICE OF SUMMONS

AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) 

AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

C. WILSON, V. SOSA,

Defendants.

Lance Henslee (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison

located in Susanville, California, and proceeding pro se, has submitted a civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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. 2], along with a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No.

4].

Case 3:08-cv-01015-IEG-RBB Document 5 Filed 06/16/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv1015-grantIFP&serve.wpd -2- 08cv1015

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 $350. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party 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 however, remain obligated to pay the entire fee in

installments, regardless of whether the action is ultimately dismissed for any reason. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), and 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. The Court has now reviewed Plaintiff’s trust

account statement and finds that Plaintiff has insufficient funds from which to pay any initial

filing fee. 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.”); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2002) (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.”). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] and

assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the Court further

orders the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)

to garnish the $350 balance of the filing fees owed in this case, collect 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). 

////

////

Case 3:08-cv-01015-IEG-RBB Document 5 Filed 06/16/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv1015-grantIFP&serve.wpd -3- 08cv1015

II.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil

action. The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, however,

unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v.

Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),

district courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may

be exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the

‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and

both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice

nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

III.

Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A

The PLRA also obligates 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

provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss 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); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing

Case 3:08-cv-01015-IEG-RBB Document 5 Filed 06/16/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv1015-grantIFP&serve.wpd -4- 08cv1015

§ 1915A). “[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.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

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

Here, the Court finds that the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint are sufficient to survive

the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Therefore, Plaintiff

is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 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)(2) (providing that “service be effected by a United States

marshal, deputy Untied States marshal, or other officer specially appointed by the court ... when

the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). Plaintiff

is cautioned, however, 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).

IV.

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. 2]

is GRANTED.

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.

Case 3:08-cv-01015-IEG-RBB Document 5 Filed 06/16/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv1015-grantIFP&serve.wpd -5- 08cv1015

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Matthew Cate,

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 942883,

Sacramento, California 94283-0001.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 4] is DENIED without

prejudice.

5. The Clerk shall issue a summons upon Defendants and forward it to Plaintiff along

with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. In addition, the Clerk shall

provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order, and certified copies of his Complaint and

the summons for purposes of serving each of these Defendants. Upon receipt of this “IFP

Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as

possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions provided

by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall

serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on

each 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).

6. 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). 

7. 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

Case 3:08-cv-01015-IEG-RBB Document 5 Filed 06/16/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv1015-grantIFP&serve.wpd -6- 08cv1015

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.

DATED: June 17, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01015-IEG-RBB Document 5 Filed 06/16/08 Page 6 of 6