Ruffins v. Din

S.D. California

Ruffins v. Din

DecidedFebruary 24, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00267

StatusUnknown

This text of Ruffins v. Din (Ruffins v. Din) 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

Ruffins v. Din, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYREE RAYBON RUFFINS, Case No.: 25-cv-00267-AJB-SBC CDCR #BJ-6459, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE R. DIN, Lieutenant, 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 2) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Tyree Raybon Ruffins (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison 19 (“MCSP”) in Ione, California proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant 20 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”)), together with a motion to proceed 21 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Doc. No. 2 (“IFP”)). Plaintiff alleges 22 Lieutenant R. Din violated his constitutional rights at Centinela State Prison in November 23 2021, by failing to follow “marriage chrono” protocol after Plaintiff and another prisoner 24 named Wilson engaged in a fight.1 (See Compl. at 3; see also Doc. No. 1-2 at 1‒3.) 25

26 1 A “marriage chrono” is prison lingo for documentation signed by a prisoner attesting to his 27 compatibility or “non-enemy concern” regarding another inmate and indicating the two can safely “program” at the same facility. Jordan v. Vargas, No. 17-CV-03706-HSG, 2019 WL 4751864, at *2 n.2 28 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 $405.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a failure to pay the entire 5 fee at the time of filing only if the court grants the plaintiff leave to proceed IFP pursuant 6 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 7 cf. Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here [an] 8 IFP application is denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the 9 fee[s] [a]re paid.”). 10 To proceed IFP, prisoners must “submit[] an affidavit that includes a statement of 11 all assets [they] possess[,]” as well as “a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account 12 statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding 13 the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)–(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 14 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). Using this financial information, the court “assess[es] and when funds 15 exist, collect[s], … an initial partial filing fee,” which is “calculated based on ‘the average 16 monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account’ or ‘the average monthly balance in the 17 prisoner’s account’ over a 6-month term; the remainder of the fee is to be paid in ‘monthly 18 payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s 19 account.” Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2)). In short, while 20 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing upfront, 21 they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. See Bruce v. 22 Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 23 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 24 /// 25

26 2 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of 27 $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to 28 1 Plaintiff’s current motion to proceed IFP is incomplete because it does not include a 2 certified copy of his CDCR or MCSP trust account statements for the 6-month period 3 immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. 4 CivLR 3.2. Without these records, or MCSP’s equivalent, the Court is unable to determine 5 whether Plaintiff is eligible to proceed IFP and cannot assess whether any initial partial 6 filing fee is required to initiate the prosecution of his case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 7 II. Conclusion 8 Accordingly, the Court: 9 (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. No. 2); 10 (2) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice for failure to prepay the $405 11 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 12 (3) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date this Order in which to 13 re-open this case by either: (a) paying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee in 14 one lump-sum; or (b) filing a renewed IFP motion, which includes a prison certificate 15 signed by a MCSP accounting official attesting as to his trust account balances and deposits 16 for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b);3 and 18 (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to mail Plaintiff a blank form “Motion and 19 Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” for his use should he re- 20 elect to proceed IFP in this case. If he does, Plaintiff is advised to include S.D. Cal. Civil 21 22 23 3 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to re-open the case by either prepaying the full $405 civil filing fee, or by submitting a properly supported renewed motion to proceed IFP, his complaint will be 24 subject to an initial review and may be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays the full $405 filing fee at once, or is granted IFP status and is required to pay the full filing fee in installments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126‒27 (9th Cir. 26 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to dismiss IFP complaints that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from defendants who are 27 immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental 28 1 |} Case No.

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYREE RAYBON RUFFINS, Case No.: 25-cv-00267-AJB-SBC CDCR #BJ-6459, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE R. DIN, Lieutenant, 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 2) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Tyree Raybon Ruffins (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison 19 (“MCSP”) in Ione, California proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant 20 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”)), together with a motion to proceed 21 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Doc. No. 2 (“IFP”)). Plaintiff alleges 22 Lieutenant R. Din violated his constitutional rights at Centinela State Prison in November 23 2021, by failing to follow “marriage chrono” protocol after Plaintiff and another prisoner 24 named Wilson engaged in a fight.1 (See Compl. at 3; see also Doc. No. 1-2 at 1‒3.) 25

26 1 A “marriage chrono” is prison lingo for documentation signed by a prisoner attesting to his 27 compatibility or “non-enemy concern” regarding another inmate and indicating the two can safely “program” at the same facility. Jordan v. Vargas, No. 17-CV-03706-HSG, 2019 WL 4751864, at *2 n.2 28 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 $405.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a failure to pay the entire 5 fee at the time of filing only if the court grants the plaintiff leave to proceed IFP pursuant 6 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 7 cf. Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here [an] 8 IFP application is denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the 9 fee[s] [a]re paid.”). 10 To proceed IFP, prisoners must “submit[] an affidavit that includes a statement of 11 all assets [they] possess[,]” as well as “a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account 12 statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding 13 the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)–(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 14 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). Using this financial information, the court “assess[es] and when funds 15 exist, collect[s], … an initial partial filing fee,” which is “calculated based on ‘the average 16 monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account’ or ‘the average monthly balance in the 17 prisoner’s account’ over a 6-month term; the remainder of the fee is to be paid in ‘monthly 18 payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s 19 account.” Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2)). In short, while 20 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing upfront, 21 they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. See Bruce v. 22 Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 23 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 24 /// 25

26 2 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of 27 $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to 28 1 Plaintiff’s current motion to proceed IFP is incomplete because it does not include a 2 certified copy of his CDCR or MCSP trust account statements for the 6-month period 3 immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. 4 CivLR 3.2. Without these records, or MCSP’s equivalent, the Court is unable to determine 5 whether Plaintiff is eligible to proceed IFP and cannot assess whether any initial partial 6 filing fee is required to initiate the prosecution of his case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 7 II. Conclusion 8 Accordingly, the Court: 9 (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. No. 2); 10 (2) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice for failure to prepay the $405 11 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 12 (3) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date this Order in which to 13 re-open this case by either: (a) paying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee in 14 one lump-sum; or (b) filing a renewed IFP motion, which includes a prison certificate 15 signed by a MCSP accounting official attesting as to his trust account balances and deposits 16 for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b);3 and 18 (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to mail Plaintiff a blank form “Motion and 19 Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” for his use should he re- 20 elect to proceed IFP in this case. If he does, Plaintiff is advised to include S.D. Cal. Civil 21 22 23 3 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to re-open the case by either prepaying the full $405 civil filing fee, or by submitting a properly supported renewed motion to proceed IFP, his complaint will be 24 subject to an initial review and may be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays the full $405 filing fee at once, or is granted IFP status and is required to pay the full filing fee in installments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126‒27 (9th Cir. 26 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to dismiss IFP complaints that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from defendants who are 27 immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental 28 1 |} Case No. 25-cv-00267-AJB-SBC in the caption of his renewed IFP motion and/or any other 2 subsequent document he wishes the Court to consider. 3 Should Plaintiff fail to pay the $405 civil filing fee in full or complete and re-submit 4 ||a renewed IFP motion together with the trust account certifications required by 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 1915(a)(2) within 45 days, his case will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 6 ||28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without further Order of the Court. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: February 24, 2025

10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 25-cv-00267-AJB-SBC

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ruffins v. Din, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruffins-v-din-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack