Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111117_0001894.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 17:00:24
Document Index: 635743687

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

| Martin Vazquez, Cdcr #D-18168 v. George A. Neotti; Suglish
Martin Vazquez, Cdcr #D-18168 v. George A. Neotti; Suglish
MARTIN VAZQUEZ, CDCR #D-18168, PLAINTIFF,v.GEORGE A. NEOTTI; SUGLISH;B. KOEN; R. DAVIS; JANNUSH; AND PAYNE; JACA; HURBERT; DR. SEGAL; SANCHEZ,DEFENDANTS.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING NO INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE, GARNISHING $350 FROM PRISONER'S TRUST ACCOUNT [ECF No. 2]; (2) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF No. 3]; (3) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)
Martin Vazquez ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison located in Calipatria, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated 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], along with a Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 3].
Before the Court could conduct the required sua sponte screening of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b), Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") which is permissible pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a). Accordingly, the Court will sua sponte screen Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint as it is now the operative pleading.
I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP[ECFNO.2]
II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF No. 3]
While Plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims is limited, the Court finds, as set forth more fully below, that at this stage of the proceeding he is unlikely to find success on the merits of his claims. Thus, the Court deniesPlaintiff's request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.
III. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28U.S.C.§§1915(e)(2) & 1915A
The PLRA also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of,0 sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as practicable after docketing." See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).
Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. &sect; 1915(d) permitted sua sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). However 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing an IFP or prisoner's suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 ("[S]section 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an ...