Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01448/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01448-0/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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\11cv1448-grt IFP & serve.wpd -1- 11cv1448 IEG (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STUART SANDROCK,

CDCR #F-77645,

Civil No. 11cv1448 IEG (WMc)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, [ECF No.2]; and

(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO

EFFECT SERVICE OF

COMPLAINT PURSUANT 

TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) 

& 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

I CHOO, M.D.; S. DING, M.D.; N. LIND,

M.D.; J. LEE, M.D.; E. GUENTHER, R.N.;

J. RIVERA; L. BLAIR; THE

CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF

CORRECTIONS; THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA; DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Stuart J. Sandrock, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Ironwood State

Prison (“Ironwood”) located in Blythe California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied adequate medical

care when he was housed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“Donovan”) and his

current place of incarceration, Ironwood. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as well as general and

punitive damages. 

Case 3:11-cv-01448-H-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/28/11 Page 1 of 6
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\11cv1448-grt IFP & serve.wpd -2- 11cv1448 IEG (WMc)

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 civil filing fee required 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 [ECF No.2]

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 prepay the entire fee only

if the party 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). 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). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a

prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account

statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 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). That 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).

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 a current balance of zero and therefore insufficient funds from which to pay filing fees

at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be

Case 3:11-cv-01448-H-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/28/11 Page 2 of 6
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\11cv1448-grt IFP & serve.wpd -3- 11cv1448 IEG (WMc)

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.”); 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.”). 

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 entire $350

balance of the filing fees mandated shall be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court

pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

II.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A

A. Standard

The PLRA also obligates 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) and 1915A(b). Under these

provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion

thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks 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 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is

frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

324 (1989). However 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing

an IFP or prisoner’s suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of

the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 (“[S]ection

Case 3:11-cv-01448-H-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/28/11 Page 3 of 6
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\11cv1448-grt IFP & serve.wpd -4- 11cv1448 IEG (WMc)

1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

that fails to state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In addition, the Court’s

duty to liberally construe a pro se’s pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept.,

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are sufficiently pleaded to survive the sua sponte

screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 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.”). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, 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). 

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No.2] is

GRANTED. 

2. The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 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 payments from the trust account in an amount

Case 3:11-cv-01448-H-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/28/11 Page 4 of 6
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\11cv1448-grt IFP & serve.wpd -5- 11cv1448 IEG (WMc)

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 Matthew Cate,

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 942883,

Sacramento, California, 94283-0001.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] upon

Defendants and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each

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

Order, the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, and certified copies of his

Complaint and the summons for purposes of serving each Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP

Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as

possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions provided

by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall

serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on

each Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

5. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED 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 Defendants 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,” Defendants are required to respond). 

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01448-H-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/28/11 Page 5 of 6
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\11cv1448-grt IFP & serve.wpd -6- 11cv1448 IEG (WMc)

6. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be

filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy

of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service.

Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to

include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________________ _________________________________________

 HON. IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

 United States District Court 

7/28/11

Case 3:11-cv-01448-H-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/28/11 Page 6 of 6