Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00560/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00560-1/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 

17cv560 

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 

JAMI JOHNSON, 

CDCR #H-20376, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

D. PAMPLIN; G. VALDOVINAS; A. 

MASSIA; M. MORALES; J. HEDDY; O. 

MORALES; M. ACUNA; J. WILBORN; 

W. SMITH 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:17-cv-0560-BAS-BLM 

ORDER: 

1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

[ECF No. 3] 

AND 

2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 

EFFECT SERVICE PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) 

Jami Johnson (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at California State Prison, 

located in Corcoran, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil-rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). 

Plaintiff claims Defendants, all correctional officials at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, used excessive force against him 

and retaliated against him while he was incarcerated there in 2016. 

/ / / 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2 

17cv560 

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

Plaintiff did not pay the $400 civil filing fee required to commence a civil action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) but instead has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 3.) 

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 

$400.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The 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 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to 

proceed IFP remains 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 whether his action is ultimately dismissed. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 

2002). 

Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to 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); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having 

                                               

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 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3 

17cv560 

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

custody of the prisoner then collects 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. 

In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his CDCR Inmate 

Statement Report as well as a prison certificate certified by an Accountant Specialist at 

Corcoran. See ECF No. 3 at 4-7; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2; Andrews, 

398 F.3d at 1119. These statements show that while Plaintiff had an average monthly 

balance of $91.47 and average monthly deposits of $121.10 to his account over the 6-

month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint, he had an available 

balance of $2.01 at the time of filing. See ECF No. 3 at 7. Thus, the Court assesses 

Plaintiff’s initial partial filing fee to be $24.22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), but 

acknowledges he may be unable to pay any initial fee at this time. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a 

civil action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment for the reason that the 

prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.”); 

Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 630; Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) 

acts as a “safety-valve” preventing dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP case based solely on a 

“failure to pay . . . due to the lack of funds available to him when payment is ordered.”). 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3), 

declines to exact the initial $24.22 initial filing fee because his prison certificate indicates 

he may have “no means to pay it,” Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629, and directs the Secretary of 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), or his designee, 

to instead collect the entire $350 balance of the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 

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). See id. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4 

17cv560 

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

III. Screening of Complaint per 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)

Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his complaint requires a preanswer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these 

statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of 

it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants 

who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 

2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that 

the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” 

Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford

Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)). 

“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard 

applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6)”). Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 

as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121. 

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 

relief [is] ... a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its 

judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or 

“unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting 

this plausibility standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009). 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5 

17cv560 

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

As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint contains allegations 

sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the sua sponte screening 

required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).2 See Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1123; 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (When prison officials stand accused of 

using excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial inquiry is 

“whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.”); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 

(9th Cir. 2005) (First Amendment retaliation claim requires prisoner to allege: “(1) . . . a 

state actor took some adverse action against [him] (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s 

protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First 

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 

correctional goal.”). 

Therefore, the Court will order the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon Defendants 

on Plaintiff’s behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and

serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he 

court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal . . . if 

the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). 

IV. Conclusion and Orders 

Good cause appearing, the Court: 

 1. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

(ECF No. 3); 

 2. DIRECTS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from 

Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by garnishing 

monthly payments from his account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the 

                                               

2

 Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative 

of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may 

choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6 

17cv560 

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

preceding month’s income and forwarding those payments to the Clerk of the Court each 

time the amount in the account exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL 

PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 

ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION; 

 3. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Scott 

Kernan, Secretary, CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001; 

 4. DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 

No. 1) and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for 

Defendants. In addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this 

Order, a certified copy of his Complaint and the summons so that he may serve these 

Defendants. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must complete the Form 285s 

as completely and accurately as possible, include an address where each Defendant may 

be found, and return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions the 

Clerk provides in the letter accompanying his IFP package; 

 5. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons 

upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285s provided to him. All 

costs of that service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.

R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3); 

 6. ORDERS Defendants, once served, to reply to Plaintiff’s Complaint within 

the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant may occasionally be permitted to “waive 

the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other 

correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte 

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a 

preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a 

“reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” defendant is required to respond); and 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7 

17cv560 

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

 7. ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to 

serve upon Defendants, or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ 

counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the 

Court’s consideration pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b). Plaintiff must include with every 

original document he seeks to file with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the 

manner in which a true and correct copy of that document has been was served on 

Defendants or their counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 5.2. Any 

document received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk, or 

which fails to include a Certificate of Service upon Defendants, may be disregarded. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: April 17, 2017 

 Hon. Cynthia Bashant 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7