Dominguez v. Riverside County Court
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a civil rights complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff who had neither paid the required filing fees nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice, providing the plaintiff a deadline to pay the fees or file a motion to proceed IFP to reopen the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of civil action without prejudice“Accordingly, this case is DISMSSED without prejudice.” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally correct because 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) requires the payment of filing fees for civil actions, and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) allows a plaintiff to proceed without prepaying only if they move for and are granted IFP status. Since the plaintiff did neither, the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the merits and was required to dismiss the action. The dismissal is without prejudice to allow the plaintiff to cure the defect. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural defect (failure to pay fees or move for IFP) and applies the correct statutory provisions (28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a)). It provides a clear path for the plaintiff to cure the defect and cites relevant Ninth Circuit authority regarding the distinction between prisoners and civil detainees for fee purposes. The reasoning is complete and legally sound for a procedural dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMORY DOMINGUEZ, Case No.: 24-CV-2308 JLS (BLM)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 vs. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY COURT, 15 CENTRAL SAN DIEGO COURT, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Armory Dominguez, currently detained at Atascadero State Hospital and 19 proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1), 20 but has neither paid the required filing fees nor moved to proceed without prepaying them. 21 His case must therefore be dismissed. 22 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in the United States district court must 23 pay filing fees of $405.1 See U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma 24 pauperis (“IFP”), a plaintiff need not prepay those fees. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional admirative fee of $55. See 38 27 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed without 28 1 || 1177 (9th Cir. 1999)? 2 Dominguez has neither prepaid the filing fee nor moved to proceed IFP. 3 || Accordingly, this case is DISMSSED without prejudice. If Dominguez wishes to proceed, A |\\by February 13, 2025, he must either: (a) prepay the entire $405 civil filing and 5 || administrative fees in full; or (b) complete and file a motion to proceed IFP that includes a 6 || certified copy of his trust account statement for the six-month period preceding the filing 7 his complaint. See U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); CivLR 3.2(b). The Clerk is directed to send, 8 || along with this order, a copy of this Court’s approved form IFP motion. 9 If Dominguez pays the fees or files a motion to proceed IFP by the deadline, the 10 |} Clerk of Court will reopen the case. If he has done neither by the deadline, this civil action 11 || will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) without further 12 || order of the Court. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED 14 ||Dated: December 16, 2024 . tt 15 pee Janis L. Sammartino 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 SSS 29 The Court notes that “prisoners” who are granted IFP status remain obligated to pay the filing fee in 26 || “increments” even if their cases are ultimately dismissed. See Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)-(2). Most civil detainees, however, are not “prisoners” within 27 || the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), and thus are not required to pay the court’s 28 filing fee after being granted IFP status. See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Cites, in this corpus
- Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo 13-56004 · 2015-01-07