Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2013cv01134/785782/15
Timestamp: 2016-10-26 08:04:14
Document Index: 243592548

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2254', '§ 1915']

ORDER granting 4 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; denying 6 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Plaintiff's "Waiver of Court Fees and Costs" 8 is denied for Isham v. Luder et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings Log In
ORDER granting 4 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; denying 6 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Plaintiff's "Waiver of Court Fees and Costs" 8 is denied. The Complaint [ 1] is dismissed for failure to state a claim and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment. All pending Documents (Docs. 10, 11, 12, 13) and Plaintiff's Motion for Consolidation 14 are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a strike under 28:1915(g). The Court certifies that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/21/13.(TLJ)
Michael Darrin Isham,
No. CV 13-1134-PHX-JAT (JFM)
Susan L. Luder, et al.,
On June 5, 2013, Plaintiff Michael Darrin Isham, who is confined in the Arizona
State Prison-Kingman in Kingman, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). In a June 11, 2013 Order, the Court noted that
Plaintiff had not paid the $400.00 filing and administrative fees or filed an Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing and
administrative fees or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc. 4). On July 5, 2013, he filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc. 6). On August 5, 2013, he filed:
a Document entitled “Waiver of Court Fees and Costs” (Doc. 8);
a Document that purports to be a “First Amended Complaint”
(Doc. 9);
a Document entitled “Waiver of Service” (Doc. 10);
a Document entitled “Affidavit/for Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus” (Doc. 11) that appears to provide the Court with his current
address and contains several exhibits; and
a Document entitled “Disposition for Release” (Doc. 12), in which
he appears to seek release from prison and requests that the Court
order the United States Marshal’s Service to “take custody of the
Defendants[,] place lien(s) on named Defendants(s) employment and
bring Defendants to appear before a Federal Magistrate in the United
States District Court.”
On August 26, 2013, he filed:
a Document entitled “Order to Compel” (Doc. 13), in which he
appears to seek relief in his pending habeas corpus case, Isham v.
Luder, 13-CV-8126-PCT-JAT (JFM), and the disclosure of
a Motion for Consolidation (Doc. 14), seeking to consolidate this
case with Isham v. Mesquita, 10-CV-2494-PHX-JAT (JRI), and
Isham v. Luder, 13-CV-8126-PCT-JAT (JFM).
Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Filing Fee, and Document
seeking “Waiver of Court Fees and Costs”
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s July 1 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $12.50. The remainder
of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income
each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court
will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and
forward the fees according to the statutory formula.
The Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s July 5 Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis and will deny Plaintiff’s August 5 Document seeking a waiver of court fees and
costs. Congress set the filing fee and did not give the Court the authority to waive it. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (“[I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma
pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.”); Taylor v.
Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act],
all prisoners who file [in forma pauperis] civil actions must pay the full amount of the
of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The
Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of
advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v.
Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to
decide whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s
Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend because
the defects cannot be corrected.
claims. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and concludes that it fails to
comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s Complaint is
rambling, disorganized, disjointed, and virtually incoherent.
In addition, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires in part that “[a]ll
complaints . . . by incarcerated persons must be signed and legibly written or typewritten
on forms approved by the Court and in accordance with the instructions provided with the
Complaint and accompanying instructions permit an inmate to attach “no more than
fifteen additional pages” of standard letter-sized paper.
The court-approved form Complaint is six pages long and both the form
(Emphasis in original.).
Plaintiff’s 82-page Complaint exceeds the page limitation and therefore fails to comply
with Local Rule 3.4.
More importantly, however, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim because
Plaintiff is seeking “release from an unlawful sentence and wrongful conviction(s).”
Plaintiff is challenging the validity of his confinement. This is not the proper subject
matter for a § 1983 action.
(“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are
the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of
confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”); see also Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d
573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, “a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent
prior invalidation)–no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the
target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison
proceedings)–if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of
confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). Thus, the
Court will dismiss this action.1
See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)
Document entitled “First Amended Complaint”
Although Plaintiff has filed a Document that purports to be a First Amended
Complaint, it is not. Plaintiff’s statements in the Document are incoherent and do not
constitute a First Amended Complaint. In the Document, Plaintiff alleges that he and
Defendants are residents of Maricopa County and then alleges, as follows:
That on June 5, 2013 received an independent
action~Supplement Motion related Case No. CV-13-8126PCT-JAT (JFM)
Prompt disposition given criminal proceeding (FCRrP 50).
The pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C.A. chapter 47 – sec 1028 fraud
and related activity in connection with identification
document[]s and information of concealment of facts.
The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in Isham v. Luder, 13-CV-8126-PCT (JFM).
The US Marshal’s Service will then be responsible for service
of process to the named Defendants(s): . . . .
Thus, the Court will not consider the document as a First Amended Complaint.
In light of the Court’s dismissal of this case, the Motion to Consolidate and all
other pending Documents, to the extent they are seeking relief from the Court, are denied
fee of $12.50.
All pending Documents (Docs 10, 11, 12, 13) and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Consolidation (Doc. 14) are denied as moot.
The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.
The Court will not consider Plaintiff’s August 5, 2013 “First Amended
Complaint” (Doc. 9) as a First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff’s August 5, 2013 Document entitled “Waiver of Court Fees and
Costs” (Doc. 8) is denied.
Plaintiff’s July 5, 2013 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6)
As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government
agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing
Plaintiff’s July 1, 2013 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4)
Pending Documents and Motion to Consolidate
Dated this 21st day of October, 2013.