Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01302/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01302-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORD MASTERS A/K/A LÖRD

MASTERS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-CV-1302-LAB-DHB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

vs.

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

The Court previously denied without prejudice Masters’ motion to proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP”). Now before the Court is his renewed motion to proceed IFP. 

Masters’ last motion was denied because: (1) it did not include documentation of his

assets showing that he can’t pay or give security for the Court’s filing fee, 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(1); (2) it did not include employment and other financial information as required

under Civil Local Rule 3.2(1); and (3) it did not include a certified copy of his trust fund

account statement for the six months preceding the filing of his complaint, as required by 18

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Masters has addressed most of these defects. When he filed the

motion, Masters had a balance of $1.56 in his prison trust fund, and he earned $7 a month

- 1 - 13-cv-1302-LAB-DHB

Case 3:13-cv-01302-LAB-DHB Document 7 Filed 07/18/13 Page 1 of 3
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

from his prison job. It is clear that Masters cannot afford to pay the filing fee. He has no

assets, and has not worked since 2007. Section 1915(b)(1) says the court “shall assess

and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, an

initial partial filing fee,” of either 20 percent of average monthly deposits or the average

monthly balance in the prisoner’s account. 

Section 1915(b)(2) calls for continued payments toward the filing fee: “[T]he prisoner

shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income

credited to the prisoner's account. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward

payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the

account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.” Masters’ motion to proceed IFP is

GRANTED on the condition that he pay $1.40 as an initial partial filing fee—20 percent of

his average monthly deposits–-and, from now on, 20 percent of his monthly deposits for

months in which his balance exceeds $10 until the Court’s $350 filing fee is paid. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must screen each civil action commenced

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss it if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious,

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an

immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th

Cir. 2000) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the

court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim). To survive

dismissal, a complaint must contain facts that, taken as true, “state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

Masters brings his claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that

his due process rights were violated because he is a pro se litigant who does not have

access to a law library and has limited access to legal materials. Denial of access to a jail

library con give rise to a cognizable claim under § 1983, Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132,

1138 (9th Cir. 1987), but the remainder of Masters’ pleadings muddle his claims. While his

original complaint asserts the due process violation and seeks injunctive relief and court

- 2 - 13-cv-1302-LAB-DHB

Case 3:13-cv-01302-LAB-DHB Document 7 Filed 07/18/13 Page 2 of 3
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

costs, a supplemental pleading asserts that he has been held without formal charges and

seeks $10,000 per month while in custody, release from custody, and court costs. The

complaint simply lacks factual context, so the Court cannot determine whether Masters

states a plausible claim, or whether it is frivolous. 

Masters’ complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. He may file an

amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this Order. If he chooses to file an

amended complaint, Masters should provide context for his claims. If all he seeks is access

to the library for purposes of other legal proceedings, he should say so. If he is challenging

his detention or alleging other due process violations, he should include facts showing that

he has a viable claim that he should not be in custody or that his due process rights have

been violated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 17, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13-cv-1302-LAB-DHB

Case 3:13-cv-01302-LAB-DHB Document 7 Filed 07/18/13 Page 3 of 3