Himes v. Hadjadj

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJanuary 3, 2020
Docket3:19-cv-02216
StatusUnknown

This text of Himes v. Hadjadj (Himes v. Hadjadj) 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
Himes v. Hadjadj, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RODERICK HIMES, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2216-JAH-MSB CDCR #V-34446, 11 ORDER: Plaintiff, 12 vs. 1) GRANTING MOTION TO 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FABRICE HADJADJ, 14 [ECF No. 2]

15 Defendant. AND 16 2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 17 EFFECT SERVICE OF COMPLAINT 18 AND SUMMONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) 20 21 Roderick Himes (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan 22 Correctional Facility (“RJD”), California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 23 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges 24 Defendant Hadjadj violated his First Amendment rights by failing to provide him with a 25 kosher meal. (Id.) 26 Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when 27 he filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 28 (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). 1 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $400.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 5 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). However, 7 prisoners who are granted leave to proceed IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee in 8 “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 9 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of 10 whether their action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. 11 Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 12 Section 1915(a)(2) also requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a 13 “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for ... the 14 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified 16 trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 17 monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly 18 balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner 19 has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having 20 custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the 21 preceding month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards 22 those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); 23 Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629. 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 27 fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June 1, 2016). The additional $50 administrative fee does 28 1 In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his CDCR Inmate 2 Statement Report as well as a Prison Certificate completed by a trust account official. See 3 ECF No. 3 at 1-3; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 4 1119. These documents show Plaintiff carried an average monthly balance of $54.43 and 5 maintained $37.67 in average monthly deposits to his trust account for the 6-months 6 preceding the filing of this action. See ECF No. 3 at 1. 7 Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) and 8 assesses his initial partial filing fee to be $10.89 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The 9 Court further directs the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect this initial 10 filing fee only if sufficient funds are available in Plaintiff’s account at the time this Order 11 is executed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be 12 prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment 13 for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial 14 partial filing fee.”); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 630; Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve” preventing dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP case 16 based solely on a “failure to pay ... due to the lack of funds available to him when 17 payment is ordered.”). The remaining balance of the $350 total fee owed in this case must 18 be collected by the agency having custody of the prisoner and forwarded to the Clerk of 19 the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 20 II. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) 21 A. Standard of Review 22 Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his Complaint also requires a 23 pre-answer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these 24 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of 25 it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants 26 who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 27 (discussing 28 U.S.C. §

Related

Rhodes v. Robinson
621 F.3d 1002 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Wilhelm v. Rotman
680 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
689 F.3d 680 (Seventh Circuit, 2012)
Andrews v. Cervantes
493 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Moss v. U.S. Secret Service
572 F.3d 962 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Scott Nordstrom v. Charles Ryan
762 F.3d 903 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo
775 F.3d 1182 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Dennis Walker v. Beard
789 F.3d 1125 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Bruce v. Samuels
577 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Himes v. Hadjadj, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/himes-v-hadjadj-casd-2020.