Camargo Alejo v. Vista Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se detainee's civil rights complaint and accompanying motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court denied the IFP motion for failure to include a certified trust account statement and dismissed the action without prejudice, granting the plaintiff until May 12, 2025, to pay the full filing fee or file a complete IFP motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“Therefore, the IFP motion is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), which requires a prisoner seeking IFP status to submit a certified copy of their trust fund account statement for the preceding six months. Because the plaintiff failed to provide this mandatory document, the court could not calculate the required initial partial filing fee under § 1915(b)(1). Denying the motion based on this procedural deficiency is consistent with the statute and Ninth Circuit precedent. |
Dismissal of Civil Action Without Prejudice“DISMISSES the action without prejudice.” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a civil action cannot proceed unless the filing fee is paid or the plaintiff is granted IFP status. Since the IFP motion was denied due to incompleteness, the action could not proceed. Dismissing without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the defect (by paying the fee or filing a complete IFP motion) within the specified timeframe, which is the standard procedural remedy in this context. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory requirement for a certified trust account statement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority to support the denial of the IFP motion and subsequent dismissal. The court provides a clear path for the plaintiff to cure the deficiency, ensuring due process is maintained.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Jose CAMARGO ALEJO, Case No.: 3:25-cv-0258-AGS-JLB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 5 vs. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF 1) AND DENYING MOTION 6 VISTA DETENTION FACILITY, et al., TO PROCEED IN FORMA 7 Defendants. PAUPERIS (ECF 2) 8 9 Plaintiff Jose Camargo Alejo, a detainee representing himself, has filed a civil rights 10 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF 1), along with a motion to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (ECF 2). For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies plaintiff’s IFP motion 12 and dismisses the action without prejudice. 13 IFP MOTION 14 Typically, parties instituting any civil action in a United States district court must 15 pay filing fees of $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed without payment 16 of fees at the time of filing only if the court grants the plaintiff leave to proceed. IFP. See 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); see also Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 18 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that when an “IFP application is denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case 19 [cannot] proceed unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid”). 20 A prisoner who qualifies to proceed IFP, however, remains obligated to pay the full 21 amount due in monthly payments. See Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, to 23 proceed IFP, prisoners must submit “a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account 24 25 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 26 administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 27 District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 28 1 statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding 2 the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 3 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court uses this financial information to calculate and assess an 4 initial partial filing fee, when appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2); Hymas, 73 F.4th 5 at 767. 6 Here, plaintiff’s IFP motion is incomplete because he has not included a certified 7 copy of his trust account statement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. 8 Without it, the Court cannot determine whether an initial partial filing fee may be required 9 to initiate the prosecution of plaintiff’s case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Therefore, the 10 IFP motion is denied. 11 CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, the Court: 13 (1) DENIES plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and DISMISSES the action 14 without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) & 1914(a). 15 (2) GRANTS plaintiff until May 12, 2025, to re-open his case by either: 16 (a) prepaying the entire $405 in applicable fees in one lump-sum, or (b) filing a renewed 17 motion to proceed IFP, which includes a prison certificate, signed by a trust accounting 18 official attesting as to his trust account balances and deposits and/or a certified copy of his 19 Inmate Statement Report for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 21 If plaintiff chooses to pursue neither of these options by May 16, 2025, this case will 22 remain dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1914(a). 24 25 26 27 28 1 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk to provide plaintiff with a Court-approved form “Motion 2 Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis.” 3 ||Dated: April 1, 2025 5 Hon. Ahdrew G. Schopler 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANE. NNZEO ARGCTID