Marinkovic v. Danilychev
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Melvin Marinkovic'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 dismissed both actions without prejudice and ordered the Clerk to close the cases.
| 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 recites that the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or comply with the order to do so by the deadline. Dismissal for failure to pay fees or comply with court orders is a standard procedural mechanism in federal courts. The order states the plaintiff filed nothing in this case, making dismissal appropriate. |
Dismissal of Case No. 23-cv-01280 without prejudice“Consequently, the Court DISMISSES these actions without prejudice.” | agree with court The court found the plaintiff's IFP application inadequate and noted he failed to pay the filing fee or provide sufficient credible support for his inability to pay. The court explicitly states the case is subject to dismissal and may be reopened by paying the fee. This follows standard procedure for non-compliance with fee requirements. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a routine procedural dismissal based on the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order to pay filing fees or provide adequate proof of indigency. The court cites a district court case for the standard of proof required for IFP status. The reasoning is direct and follows standard local and federal rules regarding filing fees and IFP applications. There are no complex legal issues or omitted binding authorities that would change the outcome.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
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