Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01913/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01913-2/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

3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

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

ROBERT L. NELSON, 

aka JAMAL MYXZ,

Booking #17145564,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

ORDER DENYING SECOND 

MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

[ECF No. 7]

ROBERT L. NELSON (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at George Bailey Detention 

Facility (“GBDF”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, initiated this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 19, 2017 (ECF No. 1). While 

devoid of specifics, Plaintiff’s original Complaint alleged he had been “attacked” by the 

Imperial Beach Sheriff’s Department, and had been defamed and detained by them 

through the use of drugged and diseased informants who used “unlawful advantage” to 

“gain entry to [his] residence.” (Id. at 1-3.)

I. Procedural History

On October 4, 2017, the Court dismissed the case because Plaintiff failed to prepay 

the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and did not file a Motion to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).

Case 3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC Document 8 Filed 03/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

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

On October 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3), 

followed by a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which was accepted for filing as a 

matter of course pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a), on November 2, 2017 (ECF No. 5).

Plaintiff’s FAC no longer names the City of Imperial Beach or its Sheriff’s

Department as Defendants; it instead alleges two San Diego Superior Court Judges, 

Plaintiff’s public defender, and an Imperial Beach Sheriff’s Department deputy violated 

his Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as his right to “universal 

male sufferage,” by unlawfully arresting, representing, harassing, and detaining him. 

(ECF No. 5 at 2-5). Plaintiff’s FAC seeks damages and injunctive relief related to his 

ongoing criminal proceedings and demands his immediate release. (Id. at 7.)

On January 10, 2018, however, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, 

because he failed to attach a certified copy of his prison trust account statements as 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). See ECF No. 6 at 3-4. Plaintiff was granted leave to 

fix this deficiency, provided the forms for doing so, and directed to re-file them within 45 

days. (Id. at 4.)

On January 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Second Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 

7).

II. Second Motion to Proceed IFP

As Plaintiff is now well aware, 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). The action may proceed 

despite failure to prepay the entire fee only if Plaintiff is 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 remain obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or 

“installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of outcome. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC Document 8 Filed 03/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

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

Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 

of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and 

demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 

Cir. 2015). In support of this affidavit, section 1915(a)(2) also clearly requires that 

prisoners, like Plaintiff, “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); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th 

Cir. 2005). 

From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 

The institution having custody of the prisoner then must collect subsequent payments, 

assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any month in which his account 

exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629.

While Plaintiff has now filed a second Motion to Proceed IFP, it too fails to 

comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), because it still does not include a certified copy of

Plaintiff’s GBDF trust fund account statements, or an “institutional equivalent” issued by 

GBDF officials attesting as to his trust account activity and balances for the 6-month 

period preceding the filing of this action. See ECF No. 7; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S. D. 

Cal. CivLR 3.2.b. Without this accounting, the Court remains unable to fulfill its 

statutory duty to assess the appropriate amount of initial filing fee which may be required 

to further prosecute Plaintiff’s case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 7) is DENIED and the 

Case 3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC Document 8 Filed 03/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC

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

action is again DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

(2) Plaintiff is GRANTED one final opportunity to correct his IFP deficiencies 

and an additional thirty (30) days leave from the date of this Order in which to re-open 

his case by either: (a) paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing fee, or (b) 

filing a third Motion to Proceed IFP, which must include a certified copy of his GBDF

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).2 

(3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with one more 

Court-approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for 

his use and convenience. 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 statements within 30 days, this civil action will 

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

further Order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2018

 

2 Plaintiff is again cautioned that if he chooses to proceed either by prepaying the full $400 

civil filing fee, or by submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his FAC

(ECF No. 5), filed on November 2, 2017, and which supersedes his original pleading, see

S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1, will be screened before service and may be dismissed sua sponte 

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 3:17-cv-01913-GPC-KSC Document 8 Filed 03/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4