Williams v. The People of the State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CLIFTON WILLIAMS, JR., Case No. 1:22-cv-00532-AWI-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 13 ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OF INMATE FILING FEE BY 14 CALIFORNIA, et al., STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND DIRECTING CLERK 15 Defendants. OF THE COURT TO ISSUE PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS 16 (ECF No. 2) 17 18 Plaintiff Clifton Williams Jr. is a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. §1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff has made the showing required by § 1915(a) and accordingly, the 21 request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory 22 filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make 23 monthly payments in the amount of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to 24 Plaintiff’s trust account. The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department is required to send to the 25 Clerk of the Court payments from plaintiff’s account each time the amount in the account 26 exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 27 Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time if the Court determines that . . . the 2 action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 3 or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”); Cato v. 4 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 1915 “authorizes a court to review a 5 complaint that has been filed in forma pauperis, without paying fees and costs, on its own 6 initiative and to decide whether the action has an arguable basis in law before permitting it to 7 proceed.”); Ross v. Padres LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 2018 WL 280026, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 8 Jan. 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant 9 to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the 10 Marshal to effect service.”). 11 In accordance with the above and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY 12 ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; 14 2. The Stanislaus County Sheriff or their designee shall collect payments from 15 Plaintiff’s jail trust account in an amount equal to twenty per cent (20%) of 16 the preceding month’s income credited to the detainee’s trust account and 17 shall forward those payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount 18 in the account exceeds $10.00, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), 19 until a total of $350.00 has been collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the 20 Court. The payments shall be clearly identified by the name and number 21 assigned to this action; 22 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of 23 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application on the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s 24 Department; 25 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial 26 Department, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento 27 Division; and 1 action; and 2 6. Within sixty (60) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit a 3 certified copy of his jail trust account statement for the six-month period 4 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint, if Plaintiff has not already 5 done so. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ g | Dated: _May 5, 2022 _ ef 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28