Bradford v. Bracamonte

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedApril 27, 2020
Docket3:20-cv-00213
StatusUnknown

This text of Bradford v. Bracamonte (Bradford v. Bracamonte) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bradford v. Bracamonte, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00213-WQH-WVG CDCR #H-16258, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO COMPEL v. 14 [ECF No. 4]

15 P. BRACAMONTE, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Raymond Alford Bradford (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley 20 State Prison in Soledad, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 seeking to sue several correctional officials employed 22 at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), in San Diego, California, California 23 State Prison, Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), California State Prison, Corcoran 24 (“CSP-Corcoran”), California Medical Facility (“CMF”), in Vacaville, California, and 25 California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-Sacramento”). (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 26 3.) 27 I. Procedural History 28 On February 18. 2020, the Court dismissed the case because Plaintiff failed to 1 either prepay the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) or file a 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). (ECF 3 No. 2). Plaintiff was granted 30 days leave to re-open the case by doing either. (Id. at 3.) 4 Plaintiff did not file a Motion to Proceed IFP or request an extension of time to do so on 5 or before the March 19, 2020 deadline imposed by the Court’s order. 6 Instead, on April 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Compel,” in which he asks 7 the Court to order the prison officials responsible for generating certified copies of 8 Plaintiff’s trust account statements to create and return certified trust account statements 9 to Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 4, at 2.) In his Motion, Plaintiff explains that “the application 10 [for a certified trust account statement] was submitted to the officer to be forward[ed] to 11 the trust account officer but the certified trust account statement was not returned.” (Id. 12 at 2.) Plaintiff argues that this inaction on prison officials’ part was intended “[t]o 13 prevent this action [from] mov[ing] forward,” and that he was “moved to several other 14 prisons in order to lose his property, [and] legal papers.” (See id.) Additionally, Plaintiff 15 argues that he is entitled to proceed IFP in this action because he is in imminent danger of 16 serious physical injury. (See id. at 3.) 17 II. Motions to Proceed IFP 18 As Plaintiff is aware, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a 19 district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must 20 pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite 21 failure to prepay the entire fee only if Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 23 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Prisoners granted leave 24 to proceed IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” 25 Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 26 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of outcome. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (2); Taylor v. 27 Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 28 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 1 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and 2 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 3 Cir. 2015). In support of this affidavit, section 1915(a)(2) also clearly requires that 4 prisoners, like Plaintiff, “seeking to bring a civil action . . . without prepayment of 5 fees . . . shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional 6 equivalent) . . . for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the 7 complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 8 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court assesses an 9 initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six 10 months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, 11 whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 12 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then collects 13 subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any month in 14 which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until the entire 15 filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629. 16 Because Plaintiff has not prepaid the filing fee or filed a Motion to Proceed IFP 17 that complies with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(2), the Court is unable to assess the 18 appropriate amount of the initial filing fee which is statutorily required to proceed IFP in 19 this case. 20 III. Motion to Compel 21 Acknowledging that he has not filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, Plaintiff seeks a 22 court order compelling an unnamed prison trust account official who is not named as a 23 party to this action to provide the certified trust account statement required by 28 U.S.C. 24 Section 1915(a)(2). (ECF No. 4, at 3.) 25 In support of his Motion, Plaintiff attaches a declaration stating in relevant part that 26 he has “submitted several ‘602’ appeals to no avail the prison guards will not return the 27 appeals nor the (IFP) in forma pauperis to prevent plaintiff from moving forward[.] 28 [T]he prison guards poured feces all over (3) three boxes causes an actual injury i.e. 1 preventing plaintiff from p[u]rsuing his lawsuit(s) a dismissal(s).” (See id. at 5.) As a 2 result, Plaintiff states, “[t]he court should issue an order to compel the defendants[] to 3 comply with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Andrews v. Cervantes
493 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo
775 F.3d 1182 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group
787 F.3d 1226 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Bruce v. Samuels
577 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bradford v. Bracamonte, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradford-v-bracamonte-casd-2020.