Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02319/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02319-0/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-02319-JAH-JLB 

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 

ELMER MORENO MENDOZA, 

CDCR #K-35854, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

LILY ROBERTS, Centinela State Prison 

Dept. of Edu. Staff; 

MARICELA G. LOERA, Correctional 

Counselor, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:16-cv-02319-JAH-JLB 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILING TO PREPAY FILING 

FEES REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

[ECF No. 2] 

 ELMER MORENO MENDOZA (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at 

California State Prison, Los Angeles County (CSP-LAC), in Lancaster, California, and 

proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF 

No. 1). 

Plaintiff claims Defendant Roberts, a Centinela State Prison staff member, “passed 

off” documentation related to his GED certificate with a “fake social security number” 

sometime in 2007, thus “setting [him] up to be prosecuted for fraud,” which will 

“inevitably” result in the denial of his parole in 2020. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) After Plaintiff 

claims to have first discovered the fraud in February 2016, he claims his “right to appeal” 

Case 3:16-cv-02319-JAH-JLB Document 3 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

3:16-cv-02319-JAH-JLB 

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

was denied by Defendant Loera, who cancelled his CDCR 602 inmate grievance 

concerning the social security number as untimely. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff seeks $3,500,000 

in general and punitive damages, an injunction preventing Defendants from “hiding or 

leaving the state until the damages have been fully paid,” and asks to be released from 

prison. (Id. at 7.) 

Plaintiff has not prepaid the civil filing fee required 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) (ECF No. 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1

 An 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 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the 

plaintiff is a prisoner at the time of filing, he may be granted leave to proceed IFP, but he 

nevertheless remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments,” see Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), 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). A “prisoner” is defined as “any person” who at the time of 

filing is “incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, 

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or 

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(h); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 847. 

/// 

                                               

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-02319-JAH-JLB Document 3 Filed 10/07/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

3:16-cv-02319-JAH-JLB 

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 order to comply with the PLRA, prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP must 

also submit a “certified copy of the[ir] 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). 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), (4); see Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850. After, the institution having custody of the 

prisoner collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s 

income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards them to the Court 

until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

 While Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), 

it is incomplete because he has not attached a certified copy of his CSP-LAC trust 

account statements for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of his 

Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. Section 1915(a)(2) clearly 

requires that prisoners “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). 

 Without Plaintiff’s trust account statements, the Court is unable to assess the 

appropriate amount of the initial filing fee which is statutorily required to initiate the 

prosecution of this case. Therefore, his civil action may not yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). 

II. Conclusion and Order

 For these reasons, the Court: 

 (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) and DISMISSES

this civil action without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

Case 3:16-cv-02319-JAH-JLB Document 3 Filed 10/07/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

3:16-cv-02319-JAH-JLB 

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) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order in which 

to re-open his case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing 

fee, or (2) filing a new 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 pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2(b); and

 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved 

form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” in this matter. If 

Plaintiff 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 

statement within 45 days, this civil action will remained dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without further Order of the Court.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 7, 2016 

 HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge 

                                               

1

 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further by either prepaying the full $400 civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will be screened before service and may be dismissed 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 

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 3:16-cv-02319-JAH-JLB Document 3 Filed 10/07/16 Page 4 of 4