Henderson v. J. Colon et al

1
3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. COLON, Correctional Supervising
Cook; J. CANEDO, Correctional
Lieutenant; A. REYES, Associate
Warden; C. ODELL, Correctional
Counselor II,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
[Doc. No. 2]
Plaintiff Michael Henderson, an unrepresented prisoner at California Medical
Facility (“CMF”) in Vacaville, California, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. Nos.
1, 2.] Plaintiff claims prison officials at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”)
in San Diego falsified documents to support disciplinary charges against him for
threatening kitchen staff. [Doc. No. 1 at 2–7.] He seeks $75,000 in general and punitive
damages and restoration of 121 days in custody credits. [Id. at 7, 9.] Because Plaintiff’s
Case 3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 8

2
3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IFP motion is incomplete and he fails to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be
granted, the Court DENIES his motion and DISMISSES his complaint.
I. 	MOTION TO PROCEED IFP
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
$405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a failure to pay the entire
fee at the time of filing only if the court grants the Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 	See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007);
cf. Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here [an]
IFP application is denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the
fee[s] [a]re paid.”).
To proceed IFP, prisoners must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all
assets they possess, as well as a certified copy of their 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)(1), (2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir.
2005). 	Using this financial information, the court “assess[es] and, when funds exist,
collect[s], … an initial partial filing fee,” which is “calculated based on ‘the average
monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account’ or ‘the average monthly balance in the
prisoner’s account’ over a 6-month term; the remainder of the fee is to be paid in ‘monthly
payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s
account.” 	Hymas, 73 F.4th at n.3, 767 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2)). 	In short,
while prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing
upfront, they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. See Bruce
v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore,
1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff.
Dec. 1, 2023).
Case 3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 8

3
3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP fails to include a certified copy of his
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Inmate Trust Account
Statement 	Report 	for 	the 	6-month 	period 	immediately 	preceding 	the filing 	of his
Complaint. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. Because Plaintiff has also
failed to submit CMF’s “institutional equivalent,” i.e., a signed prison certificate authorized
by a CMF trust account official certifying as to his 6-month average monthly balances and
deposits, the Court is unable to determine whether he is eligible to proceed IFP and cannot
assess the proper amount initial partial filing fee that may be required to initiate the
prosecution of his case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
II. 	SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
A. 	Standard of Review
Section 1915A(a) also “mandates early review—‘before docketing [] or [] as soon
as practicable after docketing’—for all complaints ‘in which a prisoner seeks redress from
a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.’” Chavez v.
Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2016). 	The mandatory screening provisions of
§ 1915A apply to all prisoners, no matter their fee status, who bring suit against a
governmental entity, officer, or employee. See, e.g., Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446‒
47 (9th Cir. 2000).
“On review, the court shall … dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
complaint,” if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Dept. of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1283 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)); see also Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 538‒39 (2015). “The
standard for dismissal for prisoner claims at screening is the same as the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” 	Long v. Sugai, 91 F.4th
1331, 1336 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012));
see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that screening
Case 3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 8

4
3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context of failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 	Rule 12(b)(6) requires a
complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121. A complaint fails to state a claim if it lacks a
“cognizable legal theory” or “sufficient facts … to support a cognizable legal theory.”
Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 	Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 	And while the
court “ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases,
to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt,”
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d
1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)), it may not “supply essential elements of the claim that
were not initially pled.” 	Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268
(9th Cir. 1982).
“[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a
method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.
386, 393–94 (1989) (citation omitted). 	“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of State law.” Benavidez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1144
(9th Cir. 2021) (citing Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006)).
B. 	Discussion
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to preliminary sua sponte
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because he fails to allege facts sufficient to
show the RJD officials he seeks to sue deprived him of a protected liberty interest with
respect to his disciplinary segregation and sentence. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,
Case 3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 8

5
3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
484 (1995).
A prisoner is entitled to certain due process protections when he is charged with a
disciplinary violation. 	Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-571 (1974)). “Such protections include the rights
to call witnesses, to present documentary evidence and to have a written statement by the
fact-finder as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken.”
Id. at 1077–78. However, these procedural protections “adhere only when the disciplinary
action implicates a protected liberty interest in some ‘unexpected matter’ or imposes an
‘atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of
prison life.’” Id. at 1078 (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d
850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, Plaintiff claims he was “issued a 114-D lock up order and placed in [the]
restricted housing unit on 2-3-25 for threatening staff,” [Doc. No. 1 at 3], but he makes no
further allegations to suggest the conditions or duration of his segregation was the “type of
atypical, significant deprivation [that] might conceivable create a liberty interest” under
the Fourteenth Amendment. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486; see also Rojo v. Paramo, Case No.
13-CV-2237 LAB BGS, 2014 WL 2586904, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 10, 2014) (dismissing
prisoner’s allegations of being “placed in . . . administrative segregation” and subjected to
an unwarranted “lock-up” insufficient to demonstrate a protected liberty interest pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A). Plaintiff also claims his disciplinary conviction
violated due process because it was based on the “falsification of documents” [Doc. No. 1
at 4, 6], but the filing of allegedly false disciplinary charges alone does not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment. 	See e.g., Gadsden v. Gehris, No. 20cv0470 WQH (DEB), 2020
WL 5748094, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2020) (“The allegation of the filing of false
disciplinary charges by itself does not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because federal
due 	process 	protections 	are 	contained 	in 	the 	ensuing 	disciplinary 	proceedings
themselves.”). Moreover, Plaintiff’s own exhibits show the March 12, 2025 Rules
Violation Report Log No. 7556471 which is the subject of his complaint was ordered
Case 3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 8

6
3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
subject to re-review on August 20, 2025 as a result of CDCR 602 Grievance and Appeal
Log No. 724383.2 [Doc. No. 1 at 16–24.] “[W]hen a procedural error has been corrected
in the administrative process, . . . there has been no compensable due process violation.”
Torricellas v. Poole, 954 F. Supp. 1405, 1414 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d
762, 764 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding alleged disciplinary hearing “procedural error [] corrected
through the administrative appeal process” (collecting cases)).
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff’s false documentation claims would “necessarily
imply the invalidity” of the disciplinary proceedings which resulted in 121 days of conduct
credit forfeiture, and he expressly seeks credit restoration implicating the length of his
sentence, [Doc. No. 1 at 7], but does not allege that RVR Log No. 7556471 has already
been invalidated, a § 1983 suit may not proceed at all. 	See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486–87 (1994); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646–47 (1996); Ramirez, 334 F.3d
at 856 (concluding that if alleged due process defects “necessarily imply the invalidity of
the deprivation of [a prisoner’s] good-time credits,” and as a result would decrease the
length of the prisoner’s confinement, his claims are “not cognizable under § 1983 until his
disciplinary conviction [is] invalidated.” (citing Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646). “So long as [a
prisoner’s] claim ‘indirectly [seeks] a judicial determination that necessarily implies the
unlawfulness of the [duration of the] State’s custody,’ Heck and Edwards require his
§ 1983 cause of action to be dismissed—‘only habeas corpus (or similar state) remedies’
can be used to obtain such a ruling.” 	Hebrard v. Nofziger, 90 F.4th 1000, 1010 (9th Cir.
2024) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005)).
///
2 “Courts must consider the complaint in its entirety,” including “documents incorporated into the
complaint by reference” to be part of the pleading when determining whether the plaintiff has stated a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322
(2007); Schneider v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all
purposes.”).
Case 3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 8

7
3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons explained, the Court:
(1) 	DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2];
(2) 	DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which
§ 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and
(3) 	GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order in which
to either: (a) pay the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee in one lump-sum; or
(b) file a renewed motion to proceed IFP, which includes a CDCR Inmate Trust Account
Statement Report or a prison certificate signed by a CMF trust account official attesting as
to his account balances and deposits for the full 6-month period preceding the filing of his
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b); and (c) file an
amended complaint which cures the deficiencies of pleading noted.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his
original pleading. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in the amended
complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc.
v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended
pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir.
2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an
amended pleading may be considered “waived if not repled.”).3
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026
3 If Plaintiff fails to amend and/or otherwise comply with this Order within 45 days, the Court will enter
a final Order dismissing this civil action based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay, to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and to prosecute in compliance with a court order
requiring amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not
take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the
complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).
Case 3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 8

8
3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:25-cv-02921-CAB-MMP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
8 of 8