From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thornton v. Schwarzenegger

United States District Court, S.D. California
Aug 23, 2010
Civil No. 10cv1583 BTM (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010)

Summary

denying section 1915(e) motion for appointment of counsel where plaintiff "failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or an inability to represent himself (beyond the ordinary burdens encountered by prisoners representing themselves pro se)"

Summary of this case from Brogdon v. City of Phx. Police Dep't

Opinion

Civil No. 10cv1583 BTM (RBB).

August 23, 2010


ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING NO INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE AND GARNISHING BALANCE FROM PRISONER'S TRUST ACCOUNT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2]; AND (2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)


William Cecil Thornton ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, and proceeding in pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2].

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 $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to prepay the entire fee only if that party 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). Prisoners granted leave to proceed IFP however, remain obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether their action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), and that he has attached a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. Plaintiff's trust account statement indicates that he has insufficient funds from which to pay filing fees at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 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 fees mandated shall be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) 1915A(b)

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, 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 of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.

Here, Plaintiff appears to be challenging parole conditions that were placed on him following his release from prison in 2009. Specifically, Plaintiff appears to be challenging the constitutionality of the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act ("SPPCA") which is also referred to as "Jessica's Law." CAL. PEN. CODE § 3003.5(b).

As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff's allegations sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his 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."). Plaintiff is cautioned that "the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12[] motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring." Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

The Court takes notice that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. However, it is not clear from the face of Plaintiff's Complaint whether he is incarcerated as a result of a parole revocation hearing following a violation of the parole conditions he seeks to have this Court deem unconstitutional. If Plaintiff is currently incarcerated as a result of a parole revocation based on an alleged violation of his parole conditions involving "Jessica's Law," this § 1983 action may ultimately be dismissed. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus.")

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED.

2. The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his designee, shall collect from Plaintiff's prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month's income and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515 S Street, Suite 502, Sacramento, California 95814.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 1] upon Defendants and shall and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each Defendant. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order and a certified copy of his Complaint and the summons so that he may serve Defendants. Upon receipt of this "IFP Package," Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285s. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

5. Plaintiff shall serve upon the Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants' counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service.

Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 23, 2010


Summaries of

Thornton v. Schwarzenegger

United States District Court, S.D. California
Aug 23, 2010
Civil No. 10cv1583 BTM (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010)

denying section 1915(e) motion for appointment of counsel where plaintiff "failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or an inability to represent himself (beyond the ordinary burdens encountered by prisoners representing themselves pro se)"

Summary of this case from Brogdon v. City of Phx. Police Dep't

denying motion for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because plaintiff "failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or an inability to represent himself (beyond the ordinary burdens encountered by prisoners representing themselves pro se)[]"

Summary of this case from Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
Case details for

Thornton v. Schwarzenegger

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON, CDCR #V-64547, Plaintiff, v. ARNOLD…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. California

Date published: Aug 23, 2010

Citations

Civil No. 10cv1583 BTM (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010)

Citing Cases

Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors

In the end, the burden remains upon plaintiff to establish exceptional circumstances. See Thornton v.…

Brogdon v. City of Phx. Police Dep't

In the end, the burden remains upon the plaintiff to establish exceptional circumstances. See Thornton v.…