North v. Salazar
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint filed without the required filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and granted the plaintiff 45 days to pay the fee or file a proper IFP motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for failure to pay filing fees or 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 unless the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The order recites that the plaintiff neither paid the fee nor filed a supported IFP motion. Dismissing without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the defect, which is the standard remedy in this context. |
Granting of 45 days leave to pay fees or file an IFP motion.“GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: (a) prepay the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint.” | agree with court Granting a period to cure the deficiency is consistent with the purpose of the IFP statute and local rules. The requirement for a certified trust account statement aligns with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2(b). |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory requirements for filing fees and the IFP exception. It cites the correct Ninth Circuit precedent (Andrews v. Cervantes) for the proposition that an action cannot proceed without either payment or an IFP grant. The remedy (dismissal without prejudice with leave to cure) is standard and appropriate. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on non-compliance with filing requirements.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEMARUEA NORTH, Case No.: 3:25-cv-1750-WQH-LR 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY vs. FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 14 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR FOR 15 FAILURE TO PROPERLY MOVE SGT. SALAZAR, TO PROCEED IN FORMA 16 PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO 17 Defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff Demaruea North (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently confined at Kern Valley 22 State Prison and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 23 § 1983. See ECF No. 1. 24 I. FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 25 The action must be dismissed because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or moved 26 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). All parties instituting any civil action, suit or 27 proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas 28 1 corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A civil action may proceed 2 despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in 3 forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 4 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP 5 remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 6 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 7 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Because Plaintiff has neither prepaid the $405 in filing and administrative fees 9 required to commence this civil action, nor submitted a properly supported IFP Motion, his 10 case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 11 II. CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, the Court: 13 (1) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice based on 14 Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion 15 to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a). 16 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed 17 to: (a) prepay the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and 18 file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement 19 for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); 20 S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2(b).2 21 22 23 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. 24 Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 25 26 2 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to re-open the case by either prepaying the full $405 civil filing fee, or by submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will 27 be subject to an initial review and may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays the full filing fee at once, or is 28 l (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved 2 ||form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for his use and 3 ||convenience. Should Plaintiff neither pay the $405 filing fee in full nor sufficiently 4 complete and file the attached Motion and Declaration to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this 5 || civil action will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and 6 || without further Order of the Court. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: July 14, 2025 Nitta A. Ma 9 Hon, William Q. Hayes 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 || 25 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only 26 ||permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); 27 || see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening 28 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”’).