gno.law

(PC) Traver v. Driskill

District Court, S.D. California · 3:25-cv-01476 · 2025-06-20 · Unknown

Proceeding
district
Area
civil
Panel
Robert Steven Huie (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:02Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint that was transferred from the Eastern District of California for lack of venue. The court dismissed the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, granting him 45 days to cure the deficiency.

What the court decidedThe model
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or to move to proceed in forma pauperis.
“DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a)”
agree with court
The dismissal is procedurally correct. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a civil action cannot be maintained without payment of the filing fee. For prisoners, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and (b) require specific financial disclosures and the payment of an initial partial fee to proceed in forma pauperis. The order recites that the plaintiff did not pay the fee nor file the required motion. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the merits, and dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy to allow the plaintiff to cure the defect.
Granting of a 45-day period to re-open the case by paying the fee or filing a compliant IFP motion.
“GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to re-open the case by: (a) paying the entire $405 filing fee in full; or (b) completing and filing a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint.”
agree with court
Providing a specific timeframe to cure a procedural deficiency (failure to pay fees) is within the court's discretion and is consistent with the goal of allowing pro se litigants to comply with statutory requirements. The 45-day period is reasonable and aligns with local rules and common practice in the district.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory requirements for prisoner litigation under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915. It accurately applies the precedent from the Ninth Circuit (Andrews, Hymas, Williams) to the facts that the plaintiff failed to pay the fee or file the required IFP motion. The dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate procedural mechanism to allow the plaintiff to cure the defect. The order also correctly notes that even if the fee is paid or IFP is granted, the complaint will still be subject to screening under §§ 1915A and 1915(e).

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE TRAVER, Case No.: 25-cv-1476-RSH-AHG CDCR #J-77091, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. FOR FAILING TO PAY FILING FEE 14 REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

15 AND/OR FAILING TO MOVE TO BRENT R. DRISKILL, Medical Doctor, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 Defendant. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 17 18 19 On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff Jesse Traver, proceeding pro se and incarcerated at 20 California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, filed a civil rights complaint 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California. See ECF No. 1. Because 22 Plaintiff claims a doctor at Alvarado Hospital in San Diego violated his Eighth Amendment 23 right to adequate medical care during an outpatient surgery performed in November 2022, 24 while he was a prisoner at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, id. at 1‒3, United 25 States Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto transferred the action to this Court for lack of 26 proper venue and in the interests of justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 27 See ECF No. 2. 28 /// 1 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or to File In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) Motion 2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $405.1 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to pay the entire fee only if he 5 seeks and the court grants him leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 6 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the 7 Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here [an] IFP application is denied 8 altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid.”). 9 “While the previous version of the IFP statute granted courts the authority to waive 10 fees for any person ‘unable to pay[,]’ … the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act] 11 amended the IFP statute to include a carve-out for prisoners: under the current version of 12 the IFP statute, ‘if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the 13 prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.’” Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 14 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)). Section 1915(b) “provides a structured timeline for 15 collecting this fee.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)-(2)). 16 Therefore, to proceed IFP, prisoners must “submit[] an affidavit that includes a 17 statement of all assets [they] possess[,]” as well as “a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund 18 account statement (or institutional equivalent) for … the 6-month period immediately 19 preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2). Using this financial 20 information, the court “shall assess and when funds exist, collect, … an initial partial filing 21 fee,” which is “calculated based on ‘the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account’ 22 or ‘the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account’ over a 6-month term; the 23 remainder of the fee is to be paid in ‘monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding 24 25 26 1 Civil litigants must pay an administrative fee of $55 in addition to the $350 statutory 27 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does 28 1 month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account.” Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 (quoting 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2)); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015). 3 Here, Plaintiff did not pay the $405 filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time 4 he filed his complaint in the Eastern District, nor has he filed a properly supported Motion 5 to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Until Plaintiff either pays the filing fee in 6 full or complies with § 1915(a)’s requirements, his case cannot proceed. See Andrews, 493 7 F.3d 1047, 1051; Hymas, 73 F.4th at 765. 8 II. Conclusion 9 Accordingly, the Court: 10 1) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice based on 11 Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion 12 to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a); and 13 2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to re-open 14 the case by: (a) paying the entire $405 filing fee in full; or (b) completing and filing a 15 Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his prison trust account statement 16 for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); 17 S.D. Cal. CivLR3.2.b;2 and 18 3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with this Court’s 19 approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma 20 21 2 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to re-open this case by either paying the full 22 $405 civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his 23 Complaint will be subject to a preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) regardless of whether he pays the fee in full, or is granted 24 leave to proceed IFP and is obligated to pay it in installments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 25 1122, 1126‒27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that is frivolous, malicious, 26 fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes 27 v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a 28 | || Pauperis.” If Plaintiff fails to either pay the $405 civil filing fee in full or complete and 2 ||submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, his case will remain dismissed 3 || without prejudice based on his failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)’s fee requirements. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: June 20, 2025 ‘ 6 lL bus ae □ Lowe 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Cites, in this corpus