Hoyt v. Valdovinos et al, No. 3:2019cv01553 - Document 3 (S.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. US Marshal shall effect service of complaint. The Secretary CDCR, or his designee, is ordered to collect from prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee owed in th is case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month income credited to the account and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 USC 1915(b)(2). (Order electronically transmitted to Secretary of CDCR). Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 8/27/2019. (sjt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 JOHNAE HOYT, CDCR #K-67211, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01553-L-AGS Plaintiff, 12 13 vs. 1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF No. 2] 14 15 GEORGE VALDOVINOS, Correctional Officer, et al., 16 ORDER: AND Defendants. 17 18 19 20 2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE OF COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) 21 22 Plaintiff Johnae Hoyt, while incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) in 23 Ione, California, and represented by counsel, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 24 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming various prison officials at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 25 Facility (“RJD”) violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights in April and May 2017 26 while he was incarcerated there. See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 11-19 ¶¶ 75-114. He seeks 27 compensatory and punitive damages, as well as “court costs and reasonable litigation 28 expenses.” Id. at 19-20. 1 3:19-cv-01553-L-AGS 1 Hoyt did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he 2 filed his Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). 4 I. 5 Motion to Proceed IFP All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 6 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 7 $400.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 8 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). However, 10 prisoners who are granted leave to proceed IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee in 11 “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 12 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of 13 whether their action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. 14 Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 15 Section 1915(a)(2) also requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a 16 “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for ... the 17 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified 19 trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 20 monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly 21 balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner 22 has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having 23 custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the 24 25 26 27 28 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 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 not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 2 3:19-cv-01553-L-AGS 1 preceding month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards 2 those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); 3 Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629. 4 In support of his IFP Motion, Hoyt has submitted a copy of his CDCR Inmate 5 Statement Report as well as a Prison Certificate completed by trust account officials at 6 MCSP. See ECF No. 2 at 4, 6-8; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2; Andrews, 7 398 F.3d at 1119. These records show he carried an average monthly balance of $5.52 8 and maintained $5.50 in average monthly deposits in his account during the 6-months 9 preceding suit, but that he had a current available balance of zero at the time of filing. See 10 ECF No. 2 at 4. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Hoyt’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 11 2), declines to exact any initial filing fee because his prison certificates indicate he may 12 have “no means to pay it,” Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629, and directs the Secretary of the 13 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), or his designee, to 14 instead collect the entire $350 balance of the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and 15 forward them to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set 16 forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 17 II. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) 18 Because Hoyt is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, his Complaint also requires a 19 pre-answer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these 20 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of 21 it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants 22 who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 23 (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 24 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that 25 the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” 26 Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford 27 Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)). 28 /// 3 3:19-cv-01553-L-AGS 1 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 2 which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 4 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 5 Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard 6 applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 12(b)(6)”). Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 8 as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 9 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121. 10 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 11 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 13 relief [is] ... a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its 14 judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or 15 “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting 16 this plausibility standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 17 (9th Cir. 2009). 18 As currently pleaded, the Court finds Hoyt’s Complaint contains “sufficient factual 19 matter, accepted as true,” to state First and Eighth Amendment claims for relief that are 20 “plausible on its face,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and therefore, sufficient to survive the 21 “low threshold” set for sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 22 1915A(b). See Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1123; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Hudson v. McMillian, 23 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) (unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates the Cruel and 24 Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment); Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 25 37 (2010) (per curiam) (for claims arising out of the use of excessive physical force, the 26 issue is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, 27 or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.”) (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7); United 28 States v. Williams, 842 F.3d 1143, 1153 (9th Cir. 2016) (the Eighth Amendment “requires 4 3:19-cv-01553-L-AGS 1 that prison officials ‘must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the 2 inmates.’”); Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] prison official 3 can violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing to intervene.”); Estelle v. 4 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (prison officials’ deliberate indifference to an inmate’s 5 serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth 6 Amendment); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Within the 7 prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: 8 (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because 9 of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s 10 exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a 11 legitimate correctional goal.”). 12 Therefore, the Court will direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service of summons 13 Hoyt’s Complaint on his behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall 14 issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or 16 deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915.”). 18 III. Conclusion and Order 19 For the reasons explained, the Court: 20 1. 21 22 GRANTS Hoyt’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). 2. ORDERS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from 23 Hoyt’s prison trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly 24 payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding 25 month’s income and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in 26 the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS 27 SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED 28 TO THIS ACTION. 5 3:19-cv-01553-L-AGS 1 2 3 3. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Ralph Diaz, Secretary, CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001. 4. DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Hoyt’s Complaint (ECF No. 4 1) and forward it to Plaintiff’s counsel along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for 5 each Defendant. In addition, the Clerk will provide Hoyt with a certified copy of this 6 Order, certified copies of his Complaint, and the summons so that he may serve the 7 Defendants. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Hoyt must complete the USM Form 8 285s as completely and accurately as possible, include an address where each named 9 Defendant may be found and/or subject to service pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1c., and 10 return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions the Clerk provides 11 in the letter accompanying his IFP Package. 12 5. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons 13 upon the Defendants as directed by Hoyt on the USM Form 285s provided to him. All 14 costs of that service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. 15 R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 16 6. ORDERS Defendants, once they have been served, to reply to Hoyt’s 17 Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may occasionally be 19 permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any 20 jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has 21 conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), 22 and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone 23 that Plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” the Defendants are 24 required to respond). 25 7. ORDERS Hoyt, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to 26 serve upon Defendants, or if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ 27 counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the 28 Court’s consideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). Hoyt must include with every 6 3:19-cv-01553-L-AGS 1 original document he seeks to file with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the 2 manner in which a true and correct copy of that document has been was served on 3 Defendants or their counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 5.2. Any 4 document received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk or 5 which fails to include a Certificate of Service upon the Defendants, or their counsel, may 6 be disregarded. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 27, 2019 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 3:19-cv-01553-L-AGS
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
