Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00213/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00213-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

– 1 –

18cv0213

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

ERIC C. CHATMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPER 8 MOTEL COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00213-BAS-NLS

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 2)

AND 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

Plaintiff Eric C. Chatman, proceeding pro se and incarcerated at California 

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”), in Corcoran, California, initiated this civil 

rights action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of 

California on January 26, 2018. (See ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff did not prepay the $400.00 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

at the time of filing, but instead filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (See 

Case 3:18-cv-00213-BAS-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
– 2 –

18cv0213

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

ECF No. 2.) On January 30, 2018, the Honorable Stanley A. Boone, United States 

Magistrate Judge, found venue was improper in Eastern District, and transferred the case 

to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (See ECF No. 3.) Judge Boone did not rule 

on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, nor did he screen Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) or § 1915A prior to transfer. (Id. at 2.)

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 

$400.00.

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, if the Plaintiff is a prisoner at the 

time of filing, even if he is granted leave to proceed IFP, he remains obligated to pay the 

entire filing fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 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 twenty percent of (a) the 

 

1

 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 

administrative fee of $50.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of 

Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June 1, 2016). The additional $50.00

administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

Case 3:18-cv-00213-BAS-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
– 3 –

18cv0213

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

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 twenty percent of 

the preceding month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10.00, and 

forwards 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.

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

Statement Report showing his available balance and trust account activity at SATF. (See 

ECF No. 2 at 4); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 3.2; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 

1119. This statement shows while Plaintiff had $100.33 deposited to his account over the 

six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint, he had an available

balance of zero at the time of filing. (See ECF No. 2 at 4.)

Based on this accounting, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, 

and will assess no initial partial filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 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 “safetyvalve” 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.”). The Court will further 

direct the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to instead collect the entire $350.00

balance of the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and forward installments payments 

to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

Case 3:18-cv-00213-BAS-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
– 4 –

18cv0213

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

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

A. Standard of Review

If a prisoner’s complaint “seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or 

employee of a governmental entity,” the Court “shall review” the pleading “as soon as 

practicable after docketing,” and “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 

if [it] . . . is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1); Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Here, Plaintiff seeks to sue the Super 8 Motel Company, and one of its motels in Oceanside, 

California, because he was “robbed and jumped” by four unidentified persons, whom he 

claims were selling drugs on its premises. (See ECF No. 1 at 3-6.) Plaintiff does not seek 

redress from or name any governmental actors or entities as defendants. (Id. at 1-2.)

Therefore, section 1915A(a)’s screening provisions do not apply. See Chavez v. 

Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Section 1915A mandates early review . . 

. for all complaints ‘in which a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity . . . .”) 

(quoting § 1915A(a)); see also Thompson v. Hicks, 213 Fed. Appx. 939, 2007 WL 106785 

at *3 (11th Cir. 2007) (noting that because a private defendant was not a “governmental 

entity” as described in § 1915A, prisoner’s complaint as to that defendant was not subject 

to dismissal under § 1915A).

However, because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, his Complaint is still subject to sua 

sponte review, and mandatory dismissal, if it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune 

from such relief,” regardless of whether he seeks redress from a “governmental entity.” See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015) (pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that—(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal—(i) is 

frivolous or malicious; [or] (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”); 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only 

permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to 

Case 3:18-cv-00213-BAS-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
– 5 –

18cv0213

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

state a claim.”). The purpose of section 1915’s screening provisions 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)).

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations

As noted above, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks $880 million in damages, “plus 88 

motels” and “attorney’s fees if [he] gets one,” from the Super 8 Motel Company and one 

of its motels in Oceanside, California, based on claims that he was “jumped,” while 

“working hard” recycling, robbed of $25.00 and “hit lots of times” by “4 guys” whom he 

alleges were selling drugs on motel property. (See ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) He asserts no federal 

jurisdictional basis for his claims, but claims he “could’ve died” from the “excessive 

force.” (Id. at 6.)

C. Discussion

A preliminary review of Plaintiff’s Complaint shows that his claims are subject to 

sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because they are duplicative 

of those raised, and already dismissed, in another civil action he filed in the Southern 

District of California in December 2017. See Chatman v. Super 8 Motel., S.D. Cal. Civil 

Case No. 3:17-cv-02517-DMS-JMA (“Chatman I”) (ECF No. 1). A court “‘may take 

notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, 

if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 

1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th 

Cir. 2002)). A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) [formerly § 1915(d)] if it “merely repeats pending or previously 

litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing 

former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations omitted). 

Case 3:18-cv-00213-BAS-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
– 6 –

18cv0213

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

In Chatman I, Plaintiff alleged, as he does in this case, that the Super 8 Motel in 

Oceanside, California, was liable for injuries he sustained as the result of being “jumped 

and robbed” “by a few guys” while he was recycling on its property. See Complaint at 4-

6, Chatman I, ECF No. 1. On February 15, 2018, Judge Sabraw granted Plaintiff leave to 

proceed IFP in Chatman I, but sua sponte dismissed his case for failing to state a claim 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (See Order, Chatman I, ECF No. 9.) Judge 

Sabraw also denied Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading in that case, finding 

amendment would be futile. (Id. at 8-9.)

Because Plaintiff’s current Complaint alleges the same facts, is based on the same 

incident, and re-alleges the same claims against the same corporate defendant as did his 

previously-filed pleadings in Chatman I, the Court must dismiss this duplicative and 

subsequently-filed civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See 

Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Nordstrom, 762 F.3d at 920 n.1; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t 

of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the second 

action is duplicative of the first, [the court] examine[s] whether the causes of action and 

relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on 

other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).

III. Conclusion 

Accordingly, the Court: 

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

1915(a) (ECF No. 2);

(2) DIRECTS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from 

Plaintiff’s trust account the $350.00 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 $10.00 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), noting that 

Case 3:18-cv-00213-BAS-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
– 7 –

18cv0213

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

all payments shall 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) DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and DENIES leave to amend as futile, see Rosati 

v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (leave to amend is not 

required if it is “absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint 

could not be cured by amendment.”) (internal citations omitted); Lopez, 

203 F.3d at 1127 n.8 (noting that if claims are frivolous, “there is by 

definition no merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant 

leave to amend.”);

(5) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would also be 

frivolous, and therefore not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(3), see Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); 

Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent 

appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would 

not be frivolous); and 

(6) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00213-BAS-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7