Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN GOODLOW, JR Case No.: 3:26-cv-1008-JES-MMP CDCR #AX-3970, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 (1) GRANTING MOTION TO vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 [ECF No. 4]; AND 15 MR. VALDEZ, Correctional Officer, (2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL 16 Defendant. TO EFFECT SERVICE OF THE 17 COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 18 & FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3) 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff Ivan Goodlow, Jr. (“Plaintiff” or “Goodlow”) is a prisoner proceeding pro 22 se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 2, 2026, the Court 23 denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and dismissed the case 24 without prejudice. See ECF No. 3. The Court gave Goodlow the opportunity to have his 25 case reopened by either submitting a properly supported IFP motion or paying the full $405 26 filing fee by May 20, 2026. See id. at 3. On May 4, 2026, Goodlow filed another IFP 27 motion. ECF No. 4. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the IFP motion and 28 finds the Complaint meets the low threshold for surviving screening pursuant to pursuant 1 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) and directs the U.S. Marshal to effect service of 2 the Complaint. 3 II. IFP MOTION 4 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 5 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 6 $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a failure to pay the entire 7 fee at the time of filing only if the court grants the Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP pursuant 8 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 9 cf. Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here [an] 10 IFP application is denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the 11 fee[s] [a]re paid.”). 12 To proceed IFP, prisoners must “submit[] an affidavit that includes a statement of 13 all assets [they] possess[,]” as well as “a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account 14 statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding 15 the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 16 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). Using this financial information, the court “assess[es] and when funds 17 exist, collect[s], … an initial partial filing fee,” which is “calculated based on ‘the average 18 monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account’ or ‘the average monthly balance in the 19 prisoner’s account’ over a 6-month term; the remainder of the fee is to be paid in ‘monthly 20 payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s 21 account.” Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2)). In short, while 22 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing upfront, 23 they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. See Bruce v. 24 Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 27 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 proceed 28 1 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 2 In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has provided a signed copy of his prison 3 certificate which reflects an average monthly balance of $30.33, average monthly deposits 4 of $30.83, and an available account balance of $181.95. ECF No. 4 at 7. Accordingly, the 5 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion and assesses an initial partial filing fee of $6.12 6 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). This initial fee need be collected, however, only if 7 sufficient funds are available in Plaintiff’s account at the time this Order is executed. See 8 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from 9 bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment for the reason that 10 the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee”); 11 Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), the agency having custody of 12 Plaintiff will forward payments to the Clerk in installment provisions until the $350 13 statutory fee is paid in full. 14 III. SCREENING 15 A. Legal Standards 16 The Court must now screen the Complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent 17 that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who 18 are immune. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 19 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010). The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has stated a 20 plausible claim under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) is the same as the standard applicable 21 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 22 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). Rule 23 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter . . . to state a claim to 24 relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal 25 quotation marks omitted). Although failure to state a claim under § 1915(e) incorporates 26 the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, an IFP litigant need only satisfy a “low threshold” to “proceed 27 past the screening stage.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121, 1123. 28 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must plausibly allege “both (1) deprivation 1 of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the 2 deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Tsao v. Desert 3 Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2012). 4 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations 5 In his Complaint, Goodlow alleges that on March 6, 2024, while he was confined 6 at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), RJD correctional officer Valdez tried to 7 “force” Plaintiff into his cell. ECF No. 1 at 3. When Goodlow protested, Valdez attempted 8 to grab and “slam” Plaintiff. Id. After Goodlow shoved Valdez’s hand away, Valdez 9 “began punching [Plaintiff] in [his] facial region repeatedly.” Id. Goodlow fell to the 10 ground. Id. When Goodlow was able to get up, he threw a couple of “wild” punches to 11 protect himself. Id. 12 Despite several witnesses to the incident stating that Valdez was the instigator and 13 Goodlow just defending himself, Goodlow was charged with a rule violation and found 14 guilty. Id. Goodlow states, however, that bodycam and other video footage of the incident 15 will show Valdez assaulted him. Id. He further states that his criminal defense attorney 16 requested video of the incident but has yet to receive it because of a “cover up.” Id. 17 C. Discussion 18 Plaintiff alleges Defendant Valdez violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using 19 excessive force against him and seeks money damages. Id. at 3, 7. Having reviewed the 20 Complaint, the Court finds the allegations contained in it are sufficient to survive the “low 21 threshold” of the screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) to state 22 plausible Eighth Amendment claim against Valdez. See Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1123; see 23 also Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992) (“[W]henever prison officials stand 24 accused of excessive physical force in violation of the [Eighth Amendment], the core 25 judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 26 discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.”). 27 Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to have the U.S. Marshal effect service of the 28 summons and Complaint against Defendant Valdez. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The 1 officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] 2 cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United 3 States marshal or deputy marshal . . . if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma 4 pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). 5 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 7 1. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 4). 8 2. ORDERS the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 9 Rehabilitation, or his designee, to collect from Plaintiff’s trust account the $6.12 initial 10 filing fee assessed, if those funds are available at the time this Order is executed, and 11 forward whatever balance remains of the full $350 owed in monthly payments in an amount 12 equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income to the Clerk of the Court 13 each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915(b)(2). 15 3. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Jeff 16 Macomber, Secretary, CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001, via 17 U.S. Mail, or by forwarding an electronic copy to trusthelpdesk@cdcr.ca.gov. 18 4. DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 19 1) for Defendant Valdez and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 20 285. The Clerk will provide Plaintiff with certified copies of the Complaint and a summons 21 for use in serving Defendant. Plaintiff must complete the USM Form 285 as completely 22 and accurately as possible, include an address where Defendant may be found and/or 23 subject to service pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1(c), and return the forms to the United 24 States Marshal according to the instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying 25 the In Forma Pauperis Package. 26 5. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons 27 upon Defendant Valdez as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285. Costs of service 28 will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 1 6. ORDERS Defendant Valdez, once served, to reply to Plaintiff's Complaint 2 |}and any subsequent pleading Plaintiff files in this matter in which Defendant is named as 3 ||a party within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rules of Civil 4 ||Procedure 12(a) and 15(a)(3). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may 5 occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner 6 ||confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the 7 Court has conducted its sua sponte screening Defendants are required to respond). 8 7. ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been made by the U.S. Marshals, to serve 9 ||upon Defendant, or if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendant’s counsel, 10 copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the Court’s 11 || consideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). Plaintiff must include with every original 12 || document sought to be filed with the Clerk, a certificate stating the manner in which a true 13 || and correct copy of that document has been served on Defendant or their counsel, and the 14 || date of that service. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 5.2. Any document received by the Court which 15 || has not been properly filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service 16 || upon a Defendant, or their counsel, may be disregarded. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: May 26, 2026 20 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28