Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01998/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01998-0/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

3:17-cv-1998-LAB-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

PATRICK KELLY,

CDCR #AM-6145,

Plaintiff,

vs.

W.L. MONTGOMERY; B. HEDRICK; 

R, BUCKEL; S. KERNAN; M. VOONG; 

K.J. ALLEN

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-1998-LAB-NLS

ORDER:

1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 2]; AND 

2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 

EFFECT SERVICE UPON 

DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(c)(3)

Patrick Kelly (“Plaintiff”) incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison (“CAL”) located 

in Calipatria, California, is proceeding pro se in this case with a civil rights Complaint 

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

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 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).

/ / / 

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01998-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:17-cv-1998-LAB-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

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. 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, 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. 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).

In support of his Motion to Proceed IFP, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his 

prison certificate completed by an accounting official at CAL attesting as to his trust 

account activity. (ECF No. 2 at 4.); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2; 

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. This certificate shows that Plaintiff had an average monthly 

balance of $127.15, and average monthly deposits of $131.67 to his account over the 6-

month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. (Id.)

Case 3:17-cv-01998-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:17-cv-1998-LAB-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

Based on this financial information, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2), and assesses his initial partial filing fee to be $26.33 pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the Court will direct the Secretary of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), or his designee, to collect this 

initial fee only if sufficient funds are available in Plaintiff’s account at the time this Order 

is executed. 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.”). The remaining balance of the $350 total fee owed in this case must 

be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

II. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A

A. Standard of Review

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 

Case 3:17-cv-01998-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:17-cv-1998-LAB-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

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 to “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).

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint contains First Amendment claims, as 

well as claims brought pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons 

Act (“RLUIPA”), 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). See Wilhelm 680 

F.3d at 1123.

Accordingly, the Court will direct 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.”).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01998-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:17-cv-1998-LAB-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

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons discussed, the Court:

1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2).

2) ORDERS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from 

Plaintiff’s trust account the $26.33 initial filing fee assessed, if those funds are available 

at the time this Order is executed, and forward whatever balance remains of the full $350 

owed in monthly payments in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding 

month’s income to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account 

exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS MUST 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 blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each 

Defendant. 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 Defendants. 

Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must complete the Form 285 as completely 

and accurately as possible, include an address where Defendants may be found and/or 

subject to service pursuant to S.D. CAL. CIVLR 4.1c, and return it 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 285 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);

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01998-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:17-cv-1998-LAB-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

6) ORDERS Defendants, once they have been 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,” the defendant is 

required to respond); and

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 the Defendants may be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2017

HON. LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01998-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6