Bonilla v. San Diego County Court Clerk's Office
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a civil rights action filed by a state prisoner who had not paid the required filing fees or moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ordered the action dismissed without prejudice, providing the plaintiff a deadline to either pay the fees or file a motion for IFP status.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of action for failure to pay filing fee“Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally correct under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), which requires prepayment of fees for civil actions in district court. The plaintiff failed to pay the $405 fee or file a motion for in forma pauperis status, which is the only alternative mechanism to proceed without prepayment. The court correctly cited the relevant statutes and Ninth Circuit precedent (Andrews v. Cervantes) supporting the requirement. The dismissal is without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to cure the defect by paying or filing the IFP motion by the specified deadline. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory requirement for prepayment of filing fees and the alternative mechanism of IFP status. It accurately cites the relevant statutes and Ninth Circuit precedent. The dismissal is without prejudice, providing the plaintiff a clear path to cure the defect. The reasoning is straightforward and legally sound for a procedural dismissal based on non-payment of fees.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Steven Wayne BONILLA, Case No.: 24-cv-2374-AGS-SBC 5 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 6 FOR FAILURE TO PAY v. FILING FEE 7 8 SAN DIEGO COUNTY COURT 9 CLERK’S OFFICE, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff Steven Bonilla is a state prisoner representing himself in this civil-rights 13 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF 1.) Because he has not paid the required filing 14 fees or moved to proceed without prepaying them, this case must be dismissed. 15 All parties instituting a civil action in U.S. district court must generally prepay filing 16 fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In non-habeas cases, the total fee is $405, consisting of a 17 $350 statutory fee and a $55 administrative fee. See id.; Judicial Conference Schedule of 18 Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023). If a plaintiff is 19 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, however, the administrative fee is waived and 20 the case may proceed “without prepayment of [statutory] fees.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); see 21 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). Yet a prisoner granted IFP 22 status remains obligated to pay the statutory filing fee in “increments.” See Williams v. 23 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2). 24 Bonilla has not prepaid the $405 in required fees, nor has he moved to proceed IFP. 25 Therefore, his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 26 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. By February 6, 2025, 27 Bonilla may either (a) prepay the entire $405 filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) file 28 a motion to proceed IFP that includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 1 ||six-month period preceding the filing of his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); 2 || CivLR 3.2(b). 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Clerk must send Bonilla a copy 4 this order along with this Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of 5 || Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” If Bonilla pays the fees or files a motion to proceed 6 || IFP by the deadline, the Clerk will reopen the case. If Bonilla has done neither by the 7 || deadline, the Clerk will issue a judgment by February 13, 2025. 8 Bonilla is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed, his complaint will be screened 9 ||before service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Regardless of 10 || whether he pays the fee or is granted IFP status, the case may be subject to post-screening 11 dismissal. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing IFP 12 screening); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing screening 13 all prisoner complaints “seeking redress from a governmental entity’’). 14 || Dated: January 2, 2025 15 | fi 16 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 oe
Cites, in this corpus
- Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo 13-56004 · 2015-01-07