Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150728_0000615.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-09-25 10:33:45
Document Index: 264567311

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

| Woodson v. Ortiz
Woodson v. Ortiz
THOMAS WOODSON, CDCR # P-76095, Plaintiff,v.R.N. ORTIZ; R.N. ORDUNA; Dr. M. KIM; Dr. STEPKE; Dr. K. BALL; L. GUTIERREZ; J. DOGONYARO, Defendants.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc No. 2) AND (2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3)
Thomas R. Woodson ("Plaintiff"), currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison ("CAL") in Calipatria, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint ("Compl.") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1).
Plaintiff alleges that several CAL doctors, nurses, a health care supervisor, and two health care appeals coordinators acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by delaying necessary surgery after he fractured and dislocated bones in his left hand. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants obstructed his attempts to seek administrative relief related to his care in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See Compl. at 4-12. He seeks $52, 500 in general and punitive damages. Id. at 14.
Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Doc. 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).[1] 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 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the plaintiff is a prisoner and he is granted leave to proceed IFP, he remains obligated to pay the full entire fee in "increments, " see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), 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).
In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's trust account activity, which shows an average monthly balance of $2.42 and average monthly deposits of only $2.60 to his account over the six-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. However, Plaintiff had an available balance of zero on the books at the time of filing. 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 [an] 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.").
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. 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 fee owed must be collected by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
As currently pled, the Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint contains plausible claims for relief which are 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 v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976) (prison officials may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment if they act with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs); id. at 104-05 (deliberate indifference may be shown if prison officials "intentionally deny[] or delay[] access to medical care."). Accordingly, the Court will direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon the 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.").
5. DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) upon Defendants and forward it to Plaintiff along with a 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 the Defendants. Once he receives this "IFP Package, " Plaintiff must complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying the IFP package.