(PC) Hauer v. Department of State Hospitals-Coalinga

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 4, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01090
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DWIGHT HAUER, Case No. 1:25-cv-01090-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

14 DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Doc. 2) HOSPITALS—COALINGA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Dwight Hauer (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 20 August 28, 2025. (Doc. 1). That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 21 pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2). 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United 23 States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1 See 28 24 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only 25 if he or she is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. 26 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to 27 1 The required fee includes a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee, as of December 28 1, 2023. 1 proceed without full prepayment of fees to file an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets 2 possessed and demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 3 (9th Cir. 2015). 4 “Unlike other indigent litigants, prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis must pay the full 5 amount of filing fees in civil actions and appeals pursuant to the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform 6 Act].” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 886 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Taylor 7 v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002)). As defined by the PLRA, a “prisoner” is “any 8 person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or 9 adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, 10 probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h). 11 However, persons who file suit after having been released from custody are no longer 12 “prisoners” as defined by the PLRA and are therefore not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), 42 U.S.C. 13 § 1997e(a)’s pre-suit administrative exhaustion requirements, or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s “three- 14 strikes” provision. See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000) (a person confined 15 under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Law, while “a prisoner within the meaning of the 16 PLRA when he served time for his conviction, [] ceased being a ‘prisoner’ when he was released 17 from the custody of the Department of Corrections”); Jackson v. Fong, 870 F.3d 928, 934-35 (9th 18 Cir. 2017) (former prisoner incarcerated when he filed his civil rights action but released by the 19 time he filed an amended complaint was not subject to the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement); Moore 20 v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that § 1915(g)’s three- 21 strikes rule does not apply to a civil action of appeal filed after former prisoner was released on 22 parole). 23 Plaintiff, a civil detainee currently confined at Coalinga State Hospital under the Welfare 24 and Institutions Code Section 6600, does not appear to have been a “prisoner” as defined by the 25 PLRA at the time he filed this action. (Doc. 1 at 2). Therefore, neither the filing fee provisions of 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), nor § 1915(c)’s “three strikes” bar apply to this case. See Andrews v. King, 27 398 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, examination of Plaintiff’s application reveals that he 28 is unable to afford the costs of this action. (Doc. 2). Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has made the 1 | showing required by § 1915, and the request to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted. 2 As to the status of the complaint, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 3 | the Court must conduct an initial review of a pro se complaint where the plaintiff proceeds in forma 4 | pauperis to determine whether it is legally sufficient under the applicable pleading standards. The 5 | Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, if the Court determines that the complaint is 6 | legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 7 | monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the 8 | Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the 9 | extent that the deficiencies in the complaint can be cured by amendment. 10 Plaintiff's complaint will be screened in due course. If appropriate after the case has been 11 screened, the Clerk of the Court will provide Plaintiff with the requisite forms and instructions to 12 | request the assistance of the United States Marshal in serving Defendant pursuant Rule 4 of the 13 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 14 Conclusion and Order 15 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED; and 17 2. Plaintiff's complaint will be screened in due course. 18 | SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: _ September 3, 2025 | Ww Vv Ry 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28