Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00581/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00581-0/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

3:16cv00581-BTM-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

FRAYNO CRUMB,

CDCR #H-20376,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARK HASSELBLAD, Correctional 

Officer; DAVID STRAYHORN, 

Correctional Officer; R. OLSON, 

Correctional Counselor II; J. RAMERO, 

Correctional Officer,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16cv00581-BTM-NLS

ORDER:

1) GRANTING MOTIONS FOR 

CONTINUANCE AND TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF Nos. 5, 7] 

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)

FRAYNO CRUMB (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison 

(“KVSP”) in Delano, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 

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

Plaintiff claims Defendants Strayhorn, Hasselblad, and Ramero, all correctional 

officials at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, 

used excessive force against him and denied him medical treatment while he was 

incarcerated there on January 27, 2015. After, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Olson, a 

Case 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:16cv00581-BTM-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

correctional counselor, thwarted his efforts to timely file an administrative staff complaint

related to the incident. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 10-11.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing 

“retaliation” as well as “exemplary,” punitive and “prospective” damages. (Id. at 7.)

I. Procedural History

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

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), or file a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), at the time he filed his Complaint, on May 25, 

2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be dismissed, but 

granted him leave to either pay the filing fee or move IFP within 45 days (ECF No. 3).

On July 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting a continuance in which to 

comply with the Court’s Order (ECF No. 5), but soon thereafter, he filed his Motion to 

Proceed IFP (ECF No. 7).

II. Motions for Continuance and 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).

 

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 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:16cv00581-BTM-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

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 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 

KVSP. See ECF No. 7 at 4-6; 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 $6.64 and average monthly deposits of $65.84 to his account over the 6-month period 

immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint, he had an available balance of zero at 

the time of filing. See ECF No. 7 at 4, 5. Thus, the Court assesses Plaintiff’s initial partial 

filing fee to be $13.16 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.”). 

///

Case 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:16cv00581-BTM-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

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance and his Motion 

to Proceed IFP (ECF Nos. 5, 7), declines to exact the initial $13.16 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.

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. 

///

Case 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:16cv00581-BTM-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

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).

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.”); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 

 

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). 

However, the Court finds it is not “clear from the face of the complaint,” whether Plaintiff 

has exhausted all “available” administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert denied, 135 S. Ct. 

403 (2014); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). In his Complaint, 

Plaintiff claims his attempts to file a CDC 602 “staff complaint” were “thwarted by I/M 

Appeals Coordinator [Defendant] R. Olson.” See Doc. No. 1 at 6; Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 

1850, 1859 (2016) (“[A]n inmate is required to exhaust those, but only those, grievance 

procedures that are ‘capable of use’ to obtain ‘some relief for the action complained of.’”) 

(quoting Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738 (2001)); id. at 1859-60 (noting unavailability 

where “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process 

through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.”). Therefore, because exhaustion 

is an affirmative defense, Defendants “will have to present probative evidence . . . ‘to plead 

and prove’ . . . that [Plaintiff] has failed to exhaust” all availalable administrative remedies 

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56, should they elect to defend on this basis. Albino, 747 F.3d 

at 1169 (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007)). 

Case 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:16cv00581-BTM-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

(1976) (prison officials are liable if they act with deliberate indifferent to a prisoner’s 

serious medical needs); id. at 104 (deliberate indifference “is manifested by prison 

[officials] intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care.”).

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 for Continuance and to Proceed IFP pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF Nos. 5, 7);

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 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 

HASSELBLAD, STRAYHORN, OLSON and RAMERO. 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 

Case 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:16cv00581-BTM-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

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 HASSELBLAD, STRAYHORN, OLSON and RAMERO 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 HASSELBLAD, STRAYHORN, OLSON and 

RAMERO, 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

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

serve upon Defendants HASSELBLAD, STRAYHORN, OLSON and RAMERO, 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. 

Dated: 11/1/2016

Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7