Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00009/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00009-1/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 

3:18-cv-0009-MMA-AGS 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEREK RODEN, 

CDCR #BB-0303, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

RICHARD J. DONOVAN 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 3:18-cv-0009-MMA-AGS 

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILING TO PAY 

FILING FEE REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR 

FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

DEREK RODEN (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at 

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, filed a 4-

page letter addressed to the Clerk of the Court and the Chief Judge of the Eastern District 

of California on December 28, 2017, while he was temporarily held at the California 

Health Care Facility (“CHCF”) in Stockton. See Doc. No. 1. 

Because Plaintiff claimed to have been assaulted by an unidentified correctional 

officer at RJD, and he sought an “emergency” “protection order” preventing his transfer 

back to RJD, the Clerk construed Plaintiff’s letter to be civil rights Complaint pursuant to 

Case 3:18-cv-00009-MMA-AGS Document 8 Filed 02/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

3:18-cv-0009-MMA-AGS 

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and then transferred the case here for lack of proper venue pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) on January 3, 2018. See Doc. No. 3. 

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status 

 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). 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 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the Plaintiff is a prisoner, and 

even if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he remains obligated to pay the 

entire filing 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). 

 Plaintiff did not prepay the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to 

commence a civil action when he submitted his letter to the Clerk of Court in the Eastern 

District of California, nor has he since filed a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).1

 Therefore, to the extent his letter manifests an intent to 

commence a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, his case cannot yet proceed. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

                                                                

1

 On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed another ex parte letter expressing confusion as to 

the status of his case, reporting he had been “kicked out of CHCF” on December 28, 

2018, and had been transferred back to RJD. See Doc. No. 7. This Court has since 

confirmed that Plaintiff is currently housed at RJD. See https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ 

Details.aspx?ID=BB0303 (last visited Feb. 15, 2018). 

Case 3:18-cv-00009-MMA-AGS Document 8 Filed 02/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

3:18-cv-0009-MMA-AGS 

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

II. Conclusion and Order 

 Accordingly, the Court: 

 (1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the 

$400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and 

 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is 

filed to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) 

complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust 

account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 

 The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with the 

Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis.”2

 If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee or complete 

                                                                

2

 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further by either prepaying the full 

$400 civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, the letter 

he filed in the Eastern District of California (Doc. No. 1) will be construed as a civil rights 

Complaint, screened before service, and subject to immediate sua sponte dismissal 

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, insofar as it currently fails comply with Rule 8, 

and fails to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief may be granted. 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.”); Bridgeman v. Educ. Dep’t, No. CIV. 11-0387 JLS CAB, 2011 WL 2532413, at 

*1 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2011) (noting that RJD, a prison within the State of California’s 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is not a “person” subject to suit under 

§ 1983); see also Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th Cir.1993) (holding 

that a state department of corrections is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983). 

Case 3:18-cv-00009-MMA-AGS Document 8 Filed 02/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

3:18-cv-0009-MMA-AGS 

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

and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will remain 

dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)’s 

fee requirements and without further Order of the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: February 16, 2018 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:18-cv-00009-MMA-AGS Document 8 Filed 02/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4