Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191118_0003014.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-16 02:03:10
Document Index: 81808769

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

FindACase™ | Davis v. San Diego Police Dep't
Davis v. San Diego Police Dep't
STEPS WINN DAVIS CDCR #BI-4186, Plaintiff,
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEP'T; ROBERT NELSON; PETER LARSON; WILLIS SHORT; JERRAD SCHNAUTZ, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; [DOC. NO. 2] DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION SUA SPONTE FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B)(II) & § 1915A
HON MICHAEL M. ANELLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Steps Winn Davis, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center locate in Norco, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages against the San Diego Police Department (“SDPD”) and individual SDPD officers. See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action 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). See Doc. No. 2.
In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his CDCR inmate statement report. See ECF No. 2 at 3; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. This statement indicates that Plaintiff had an available balance of $0.33 at the time of filing. See ECF No. 2 at 3. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. No. 2) and assesses no initial partial filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis is subject to sua sponte dismissal, however, if it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (holding that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Factua ...