Marinkovic v. Cockerham
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered the plaintiff's failure to pay filing fees or provide adequate proof of inability to pay after his motions to proceed in forma pauperis were denied. The court ordered the dismissal of both actions without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Case No. 23-cv-01279 without prejudice“Consequently, the Court DISMISSES these actions without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule and general authority that a plaintiff who fails to pay the filing fee or demonstrate indigency after being given notice and an opportunity to do so is subject to dismissal. The order notes the plaintiff filed nothing in this case after the deadline. |
Dismissal of Case No. 23-cv-01280 without prejudice“Consequently, the Court DISMISSES these actions without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly denied the IFP application as inadequate and dismissed the case for failure to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff filed an identical, previously rejected application rather than a revised one or proof of payment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies the specific failures (non-payment and inadequate IFP application) and cites a relevant district court case for the standard of proof required for IFP status. The dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy for failure to pay fees.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN MARINKOVIC, Case No. 23-cv-01279-BAS-JLB 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 KIMBERLY P. COCKERHAM, 15 Defendant. 16 17 MELVIN MARINKOVIC, Case No. 23-cv-01280-BAS-JLB 18 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING 19 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 20 MARIA DANILYCHEV, 21 Defendant. 22 23 These cases are just two of many lawsuits filed by self-represented Plaintiff Melvin 24 Marinkovic. In both cases, Plaintiff moved to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)— 25 without paying the filing fee. Plaintiff also moved to seal his IFP Applications. 26 The Court addressed the same requests in one of Plaintiff’s other matters— 27 Marinkovic v. Liberty Mutual Holding Co., Case No. 23-cv-1084-BAS-JLB. After the 28 1 |} Court denied Plaintiff's requests, he filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit 2 dismissed his appeal because it was not substantial enough to warrant further review. 3 Then, in these cases, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motions to Seal and his 4 || Applications to Proceed IFP for similar reasons. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the 5 || filing fee for each case or submit adequate proof of his inability to do so no later than May 6 2024. The Court also cautioned him that a failure to do so would lead to dismissal. 7 || That deadline has come and gone, but Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee and failed to 8 ||comply with the Court’s order in both actions. Specifically, in Case No. 23-cv-1279, 9 || Plaintiff filed nothing, making dismissal appropriate on that ground alone. 10 As for Case No. 23-cv-1280, Plaintiff did not file anything in response to the Court’s 11 order, but the Court notes that Plaintiff filed an identical Application to Proceed IFP on the 12 ||same date the Court issued its prior order. This Application to Proceed IFP is inadequate 13 the same reasons the Court discussed before. Plaintiff did not file a revised IFP 14 || Application after receiving the Court’s order or otherwise “provide sufficient credible 15 support that [he] is unable to afford the costs of this litigation.” See, e.g., Adeyinka v. 16 || Walmart, No. 3:23-CV-393-JR, 2023 WL 3027318, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 11, 2023). Hence, 17 || this identical IFP application is denied for the same reasons. And Case No. 23-cv-1280 is 18 || likewise subject to dismissal, and Plaintiff may reopen the case by paying the filing fee. 19 Consequently, the Court DISMISSES these actions without prejudice. The Clerk 20 || of Court shall close both cases. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 / yy 23 DATED: June 11, 2024 ( itl A (Lohan 6 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28