United States District Court, E.D. California
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos.
1, 2, 6). Plaintiff has also filed motions for the
appointment of counsel and for the appointment of an
interpreter. (See ECF No. 3). This proceeding was
referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
reasons stated below, the court shall grant plaintiff's
request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
complaint with leave to amend. It shall also deny
plaintiff's requests for the appointment of counsel and
for the appointment of an interpreter as premature.
IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See ECF Nos. 2, 6).
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be
is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for
this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By
this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial
filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct
the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing
fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the
Clerk of Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for
monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding
month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust
account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate
agency to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in
plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee
is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The
critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however
inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.
See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if
it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle
him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467
U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log
Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must
accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,
Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738,
740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the
plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395
U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
review of plaintiff's complaint clearly indicates that it
is incomplete. As a result, the court is unable to determine
whether plaintiff has exhausted all his administrative
remedies as required by statute. See 42 U.S.C.
complaint, plaintiff states that there is a grievance
procedure available where he is housed. (See ECF No.
1 at 2). However, plaintiff fails to respond to the
subsequent questions related to whether he has filed
grievances with the prison that are related to the complaint
and whether he has completed the grievance process. (See
id. at 2).
is required to exhaust all administrative remedies provided
by the prison prior to filing an action in this court.
See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Albino v.
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation
omitted) (“The PLRA mandates that inmates exhaust all
available administrative remedies before filing ‘any
suit challenging prison conditions,' including, but not
limited to, suits under § 1983.”). Because it is
not clear in the pleading that he has done so, the court may
not proceed with review of this action. However, instead of
dismissing the matter, the court shall provide plaintiff with