Carroll v. San Diego County Jail Sheriff

District Court, S.D. California·Decided December 9, 2019·No. 3:19-cv-02073·Unknown

Opinion

ABONILICO LAMAR CARROLL, Case No.: 3:19-cv-02073-AJB-NLS Booking #19749688, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiffs, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS vs. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION SAN DIEGO COUNTY JAIL SHERIFF, WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR et al., FAILING TO PREPAY FILING Defendants. FEES REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

[ECF No. 2] Plaintiff Abonilico Lamar Carroll, while detained at the San Diego Central Jail (“SDCJ”) and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks $17 million in general and punitive damages based on claims of having been unlawfully strip searched at the SDCJ on September 19, 2019. Id. at 1‒2, 4‒6, 8. He has not prepaid the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but instead has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF 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 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he 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). However, if the plaintiff is a prisoner at the time of filing, he may be granted leave to proceed IFP, but he nevertheless remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). A “prisoner” is defined as “any person” who at the time of filing is “incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 847. Prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP must also submit a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) . . . for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). From the certified trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (4); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850. After, the institution having custody of the prisoner collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards

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

Carroll v. San Diego County Jail Sheriff, (S.D. Cal. 2019).

Carroll v. San Diego County Jail Sheriff (Carroll v. San Diego County Jail Sheriff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related