Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00898/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00898-0/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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0898-deny-IFP&dsm-venue.wpd-1- 11cv0898 AJB (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW A. LAWRIE,

CDCR #F-74464, 

Civil No. 11-0898 AJB (JMA)

Plaintiff,

ORDER: 

1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

[ECF No. 2]

AND

2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

FOR LACK OF PROPER VENUE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

AND 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) 

 vs.

KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General,

California,

Defendant.

 

Plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at

California State Prison in Corcoran, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff claims the California Attorney General has “blocked [his] access to petition the

government for a redress of grievances,” by “refus[ing] to acknowledge [his] letters” and several

lawsuits he has filed in the Eastern District of California. See Compl. at 2-4. 

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00898-AJB-JMA Document 3 Filed 05/04/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0898-deny-IFP&dsm-venue.wpd-2- 11cv0898 AJB (JMA)

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)

[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 $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 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). “Under the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act], all prisoners who file

IFP civil actions must pay the full amount of the filing fee,” regardless of whether the action is

ultimately dismissed for any reason. See Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002)

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2)).

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

submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the

prisoner 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. Thereafter,

the institution having custody of the prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20%

of the preceding month’s income, in any month in which the prisoner’s account exceeds $10, and

forward those payments 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), he has

not attached a certified copy of his prison trust account statement 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 mandates that prisoners “seeking to bring a civil action

Case 3:11-cv-00898-AJB-JMA Document 3 Filed 05/04/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0898-deny-IFP&dsm-venue.wpd-3- 11cv0898 AJB (JMA)

...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 statement, the Court is simply unable to assess the

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

this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

II. VENUE

Upon further review, the Court also finds that Plaintiff’s case lacks proper venue. Venue

may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading

and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).

“A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except

as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant

resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that

is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be

found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d

834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue

in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such

case to any district in or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations arising out of events occurring in the Eastern

District of California. Moreover, the only Defendant, the Attorney General of the State of

California, Kamala Harris, is alleged to reside in Sacramento, which is also in the Eastern

District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Because Plaintiff’s claims are not alleged to have

arisen in either San Diego or Imperial Counties and no Defendant is alleged to reside here, the

Southern District of California is the improper venue. Id. § 84(d).

/ / /

/ / / 

Case 3:11-cv-00898-AJB-JMA Document 3 Filed 05/04/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0898-deny-IFP&dsm-venue.wpd-4- 11cv0898 AJB (JMA)

Therefore, the Court finds venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 84(b), but not in the Southern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 84(d). See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP

[ECF No. 2] is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay

the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and for lack of proper venue pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1406(a).

DATED: May 4, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00898-AJB-JMA Document 3 Filed 05/04/11 Page 4 of 4