Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02147/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02147-0/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

3:18-cv-02147-CAB-NLS

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

STEVEN M. HAMM, aka JORGE 

ANTONIO PEREZ, 

Booking #18152912,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BILL GORE, Sheriff, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02147-CAB-NLS

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]

STEVEN M. HAMM, aka Jorge Antonio Perez (“Plaintiff”), while held at the San 

Diego Central Jail (“SDCJ”) for a probation revocation violation and proceeding pro se, 

filed a Complaint pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on September 13,

2018. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiff claims the San Diego County Sheriff, a doctor at the SDCJ, and several 

unidentified “active members” of the San Diego Sheriff’s Deputies Association, denied 

him access to his “lawfully prescribed medicine, i.e., Neurontin, for [his] chronic 

excruciating foot[] nerve pain” on August 20, 2018, and in violation of his right to be free 

from cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 1-3. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee 

Case 3:18-cv-02147-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:18-cv-02147-CAB-NLS

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

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time he submitted his Complaint, but instead has 

filed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

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 case 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.

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 

 

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 3:18-cv-02147-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:18-cv-02147-CAB-NLS

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

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); 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), 

he has not attached a certified copy of his SDCJ Inmate Trust Account activity 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 his certified 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 action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

II. Conclusion and Order

For this reason, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and the action is 

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a).

(2) Plaintiff is GRANTED 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 in one lump-sum, or (2) filing a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, 

which includes a prison certificate and/or a certified copy of his SDCJ Inmate Trust 

Account statements 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). 

Case 3:18-cv-02147-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:18-cv-02147-CAB-NLS

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

(3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a Courtapproved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for his use 

and convenience. But if Plaintiff neither pays the $400 filing fee in full, nor sufficiently 

completes and files a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, together with a certified copy of 

his 6-month SDCJ Inmate Trust Account statements within 45 days, this case will remain

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without any further 

Order of the Court.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2018

 

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 renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will be reviewed 

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 3:18-cv-02147-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4