Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02269/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02269-0/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-2269-AJB-MDD

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

JOSEPH A. PRADO,

Booking #16113441,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STAFF at GBDF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-2269-AJB-MDD

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION:

1) FOR FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEES REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR 

TO FILE A MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

AND

2) FOR FAILURE 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)

Joseph A. Prado (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the George Bailey 

Detention Facility (“GBDF”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a 

Case 3:16-cv-02269-AJB-MDD Document 12 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 6
2

3:16-cv-2269-AJB-MDD

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

pleading, which while not altogether clear, appears to challenge unspecified acts of 

“misconduct” committed by the staff at GBDF, Sergeant Cardoza, and Judge Williams.

(ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff claims he faces “retaliation” related to an internal affairs 

investigation, and he seeks to “press charges.” (Id. at 1, 4.) The remainder of his original 

pleading, as well as multiple supplemental documents he has filed over the course of the 

past two months, are comprised of copies of letters requesting access to his criminal and 

medical records, (ECF No. 3 at 1-2; ECF No. 7 at 4-6), copies of internal San Diego 

Sheriff’s Department incident reports and grievances (ECF No. 5 at 3-11; ECF No. 11 at 

2-5), a list of “forensics” that appear related to criminal proceedings (ECF No. 9 at 3), 

and a letter addressed to U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy seeking to hold U.S. District Judges 

Cathy Ann Bencivengo and Marilyn L. Huff “in contempt.” (ECF No. 7 at 1.)1

For lack of a better option, and because Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, the 

Court has liberally construed his pleading as an attempt to commence a civil action, and

has assigned it Civil Case No. 3:16-cv-02269-AJB-MDD. 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).

 

1 Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 

24, 2016, and that case was assigned to Judge Bencivengo. See Prado v. Williams, et al., 

S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:16-cv-02203-CAB-BGS. Judge Bencivengo dismissed his 

petition with leave to amend. Id. (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff has until January 9, 2017, to file a 

First Amended Petition in that case. Id. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff also filed an earlier civil 

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 9, 2016, and that case was originally 

assigned to Judge Huff; but it was dismissed with leave to amend on August 11, 2016, and 

later re-assigned to Judge Curiel. See Prado v. Gore, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:16-

cv-01436-GPC-WVG (ECF Nos. 1, 21, 48). As far as this Court can tell, however, Prado 

v. Gore, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:16-cv-01436-GPC-WVG, does not appear related 

to this case insofar as it involves a host of different Defendants and involves double 

jeopardy claims related to Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings, which were still ongoing at the 

time he filed it. See id. (ECF No. 21 at 4-6.)

Case 3:16-cv-02269-AJB-MDD Document 12 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 6
3

3:16-cv-2269-AJB-MDD

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

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).2 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 has not filed a Motion to Proceed IFP as required by 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, 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 Cnty Sheriff’s Office, 657 

F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 

 

2

 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-02269-AJB-MDD Document 12 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 6
4

3:16-cv-2269-AJB-MDD

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

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 (ECF No. 1) that he may 

wish to file a civil action challenging 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, 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); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78.

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 

Case 3:16-cv-02269-AJB-MDD Document 12 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 6
5

3:16-cv-2269-AJB-MDD

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

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)). 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons explained above, the Court:

(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) 

Case 3:16-cv-02269-AJB-MDD Document 12 Filed 12/08/16 Page 5 of 6
6

3:16-cv-2269-AJB-MDD

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

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. 16-cv-2269-AJB-MDD in its caption, and otherwise comply with 

FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a), by naming each individual party he wishes to sue.

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: December 8, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02269-AJB-MDD Document 12 Filed 12/08/16 Page 6 of 6