Carroll v. Toele
| Decision Date | 23 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:20-cv-00010-BAS-BGS,Case No.: 3:20-cv-00079-BAS-RBM |
| Parties | TREMAYNE CARROLL, CDCR #H-73384, Plaintiff, v. C/O TOELE, et al., Defendants. TREMAYNE CARROLL, CDCR #H-73384, v. WARDEN POLLARD, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IFP; GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO AMEND; OVERRULING OBJECTION; AND SCREENING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A(b) IN CIVIL CASE No. 3:20-cv-00079-BAS-RBM
2) CONSTRUING OBJECTION AS MOTION FOR AND EXTENDING TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED HABEAS PETITION IN CIVIL CASE No. 3:20-cv-00010-BAS-BGS
Plaintiff Tremayne Carroll, a prisoner at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD"), has two cases currently pending before in this Court: one involving a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and another civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Carroll is proceeding pro se in both cases.
Carroll's habeas case, Carroll v. Pollard, et al., 3:20-cv-00010-BAS-BGS ("Pollard"), was filed on January 2, 2020. (See Pollard, "Pet.," ECF No. 1.) The Court dismissed it on January 16, 2020 because Carroll failed to pay the $5 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and did not allege a cognizable habeas corpus claim. (Id., ECF No. 4.) In response, Carroll filed an amended petition, but it included a mishmash of claims—some appearing to challenge the validity of his Los Angeles Superior Court conviction and sentence, some involving lost custody credits at RJD, and some related to other conditions of his confinement at RJD unrelated to either the length or validity of his underlying sentence. (Id., "First Am. Pet.," ECF No. 5.) Because Carroll also failed to pay any filing fee, and had since filed a separate civil rights case, Carroll v. Toele, et al., 3:20-cv-00079-BAS-RBM ("Toele"), the Court dismissed Carroll's amended habeas petition in Pollard, and instructed him once more to pay the filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and to file a second amended petition.1 (See Pollard, ECF No. 6.) Carroll has not filed a second amended habeas petition in that case, however, and the April 6, 2020 deadline set for doing so has elapsed.
In his civil rights case, Carroll has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (See Toele, ECF No. 2.) His complaint names seven RJD correctional officers and sergeants, a "psych tech," and 100 unidentified John/Jane Doe(s) as defendants. (Id., "Compl.," ECF No. 1.) Carroll explicitly invokes only the Eighth Amendment'sprohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as the constitutional basis of his claims, but he also claims to have been falsely targeted as a "snitch" and a "child molester" "in retaliation" for his having reported "employee sexual misconduct." (Id. at 1, 3-4). He further alleges to have "suffered multiple falls in [his] wheelchair" between "2015-2020." (Id. at 1, 3-5.)
Carroll also claims his "life is in imminent danger if [he is] housed anywhere at RJD (including RJD-ASU), KVSP, CMF, SVSP, COR, HDSP, SAT-F or [other] Green Wall Facilities." (Id. at 6.) In support, he attaches as an exhibit an unsigned petition seeking injunctive relief on his behalf and authored by a person who "can't say [his] name in fear of retaliation," as well as two letters he addressed to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), various other CDCR executives, the former Governor of California, and the Wardens at RJD, CSP-LAC, HDSP, and SVSP, both dated in May 2018, and broadly alleging past incidents of sexual assault, multifarious set-ups, and falsified rules violations at all those facilities, dating as far back as 2016. (Id. at 9-17.)
After he filed his complaint and IFP in Toele, Carroll also submitted a document entitled "Petition to Amend and Compel Writ of Mandate and Naming Defendant(s)," in which he contends another RJD sergeant and correctional officer conspired with the defendants he originally named to violate his rights. (See id., ECF No. 5 at 1.) Carroll also seeks to "add[] Drive Wheelchair Manufacturers and State Vehicle Drivers" for injuries he and other inmates "suffered while seated in wheelchair[s] on state vehicles" at various prisons throughout the State. (Id.) Attached to this document are several additional exhibits, which he appears to offer in support of the allegations in his complaint. (Id. at 2-20.)
Finally, on April 15, 2020, Carroll submitted a document entitled "Objection to Court[']s Ruling, Reconsideration, Extension (90) Days, Appointment of Counsel" and listing both his habeas case, No. 3:20-cv-00010-BAS-BGS, and his civil rights case, No. 3:20-cv-00079-BAS-RBM, in its caption. (See Toele, ECF No. 7; Pollard, ECF No. 8.) Inthis document, which has been accepted for filing in both cases, Carroll claims he has "been back and forth to outside hospitals for various issues related to medical neglect and endangerment," and that this is just RJD's "latest effort to circumvent [his] due process rights." (Id. at 1.) Because the Court has yet to issue any order in Toele, it appears Carroll is "objecting" to the Court's February 10, 2020 Order in Pollard. (See Pollard, ECF No. 6.) However, he also claims to have suffered new hip injuries as a result of his recent transport and claims two additional RJD officials "drug [him] out of [his] cell" without securing his head after he fell on April 8, 2020 and suffered a seizure. (See Toele, ECF No. 7 at 2; Pollard, ECF No. 8 at 2.) Carroll also asks that "Dr. Silva (who discriminates against blacks, transgenders, LGBTQ inmate/patients) ... be added as [a] respondent[] in both entitled cases." (Id.)
Given all this, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court reaches several conclusions. First, Carroll's Motion to Proceed IFP in Toele, Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-00079-BAS-RBM (ECF No. 2) and his Motion to Amend/Name Defendants (ECF No. 5) will be GRANTED. However, some of his claims must be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and his Objection to Court Ruling (ECF No. 7) must be OVERRULED.
Second, the Court will simultaneously construe Carroll's Objection to Court Ruling in Pollard, Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-00010-BAS-BGS (ECF No. 8), as a request for extension of time to file a second amended habeas petition, and in light of his pro se status, and taking into consideration the means by which he has conflated his two cases, will GRANT him an extension of time in which to comply with the Court's February 10, 2020 Order (ECF No. 6).
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of$400.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in "increments" or "installments," Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).
Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a "certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month's income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629.
In support of his IFP Motion, Carroll has submitted a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Civil Local Rule 3.2. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. The Court has reviewed Carroll's trust account activity, as well as theattached prison certificate verifying his available balances. (See ECF No. 3, at 1-5.) These documents show Carroll carried an average monthly balance of $21.21, had $6.00 in average monthly deposits to his trust account during the six months preceding the filing of his complaint, and had a sum of $9.25 to his credit at the time of filing. (See id. at 1, 3.)
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Carroll's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) and assesses an initial partial filing fee of $4.24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1). However, the Court will direct the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect this initial fee only if sufficient funds are available in Carroll's account at the time this Order is executed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 630; Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial