Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00540/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00540-0/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

C:\Documents and Settings\Moanam\Local Settings\Temp\notes4DFDCF\11cv0540-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 1 11cv0540 DMS (BGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR BAUTISTA,

Inmate Booking #10734667 Civil

No. 

11cv0540 DMS (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

and

(2) DISMISSING CLAIMS FOR

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)

vs.

BRANDON STANLEY, Officer, El Cajon

Police Department,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee currently incarcerated at the San Diego Central Jail located

in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

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

Case 3:11-cv-00540-DMS-BGS Document 3 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 4
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

C:\Documents and Settings\Moanam\Local Settings\Temp\notes4DFDCF\11cv0540-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 2 11cv0540 DMS (BGS)

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 that he 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. Plaintiff’s trust account statement shows that

he has insufficient funds from which to pay an initial partial filing fee.

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

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

orders the Watch Commander for the San Diego Central Jail to garnish the entire $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).

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 also

obligate 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)(B) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua

sponte dismiss any prisoner civil action and all other IFP 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 n.1 (9th Cir.

2000) (§ 1915A).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00540-DMS-BGS Document 3 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 4
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

C:\Documents and Settings\Moanam\Local Settings\Temp\notes4DFDCF\11cv0540-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 3 11cv0540 DMS (BGS)

Plaintiff alleges that following his arrest and while he was being detained at the El Cajon

Police Department, Defendant Stanley “refused” to get medical treatment for Plaintiff for

injuries that occurred prior to his arrest. (Compl. at 2-3.) While it appears that Plaintiff was a

pre-trial detainee at the time, the Ninth Circuit has held that a “pretrial detainees’ rights under

the Fourteenth Amendment are comparable to prisoners’ rights under the Eighth Amendment,”

and therefore, “the same standards apply.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

In order to assert a claim for inadequate medical care, Plaintiff must allege facts which are

sufficient to show that each person sued was “deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

(1976). To be liable, prison officials must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to Plaintiff’s

pain or medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. The “deliberate indifference’ standard

applies to claims that correction facility officials failed to address the medical needs of pretrial

detainees.” Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1242 (9th Cir. 2010).

First, Plaintiff fails to identify with any specificity the nature of his injuries or

demonstrate to the Court that he has alleged a serious medical need. Second, if Plaintiff is

attempting to allege that there was a delay in treatment based on Defendant Stanley’s actions,

there are no facts in the Complaint from which the Court can determine whether he has suffered

any injury as a result of Defendant’s action. See Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison

Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (a prisoner can make “no claim for deliberate

medical indifference unless the denial was harmful.”).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). See Lopez, 203 F.3d

at 1126-27; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446, n.1. 

III. 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) is GRANTED.

(2) The Watch Commander, 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

Case 3:11-cv-00540-DMS-BGS Document 3 Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 of 4
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

C:\Documents and Settings\Moanam\Local Settings\Temp\notes4DFDCF\11cv0540-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 4 11cv0540 DMS (BGS)

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.

(3) The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Watch

Commander, San Diego Central Jail, 1173 Front Street, San Diego, California 92101.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(4) Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b).

However, Plaintiff is further GRANTED sixty (60) days leave from the date this Order is filed

in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted

above. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his

previous pleading. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not realleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Further, Plaintiff is cautioned that should he elect not to amend, or if his Amended

Complaint still fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the dismissal of this

action may hereafter be counted as a “strike” against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996).

(5) The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a court approved § 1983 civil rights

complaint to Plaintiff.

DATED: June 21, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00540-DMS-BGS Document 3 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 4