Dorado v. City of San Diego, CA
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and found it deficient because the plaintiff failed to provide a certified copy of his trust fund account statement for the preceding six months. The court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the civil action without prejudice, granting the plaintiff 45 days to either pay the full filing fee or file a renewed, complete IFP motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. No. 2)” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), which mandates that a prisoner's IFP application include a certified copy of the trust fund account statement for the six-month period preceding the filing. Because the plaintiff failed to provide this required document, the court could not assess the initial partial filing fee required by § 1915(b)(1). Denying the motion based on this procedural deficiency is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., Andrews v. King). |
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 without the payment of the filing fee or a grant of IFP status. Because the IFP motion was denied for incompleteness, the court was required to dismiss the action. Dismissing without prejudice is the appropriate remedy to allow the plaintiff to cure the deficiency (by paying the fee or filing a complete IFP motion) within a set timeframe. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Andrews v. King) to support the requirement for a certified trust account statement. The court's reasoning logically connects the plaintiff's failure to provide this document to the inability to assess the initial partial fee, leading to the denial of the IFP motion and the subsequent dismissal of the action under § 1914(a). The court also provides a clear path for the plaintiff to cure the deficiency.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL DORADO, Case No.: 3:25-cv-1509-CAB-MSB CDCR #BN-7728, 12 ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION Plaintiff, 13 TO PROCEED IN FORMA vs. PAUPERIS AND 14 15 (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION CITY OF SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF SAN WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 16 DIEGO, FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEES 17 Defendants. REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)
18 [Doc. No. 2] 19 20 21 Daniel Dorado (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 22 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 1.] In lieu of paying the filing fee 23 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), he has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 24 (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] For the reasons discussed below, 25 the Court denies Plaintiff’s IFP motion and dismisses the action without prejudice. 26 I. IFP MOTION 27 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 28 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 1 $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a failure to pay the entire 2 fee at the time of filing only if the court grants the Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP pursuant 3 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 4 cf. Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here [an] 5 IFP application is denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the 6 fee[s] [a]re paid.”). 7 To proceed IFP, prisoners must “submit[] an affidavit that includes a statement of 8 all assets [they] possess[,]” as well as “a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account 9 statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding 10 the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 11 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). Using this financial information, the court “assess[es] and when 12 funds exist, collect[s], … an initial partial filing fee,” which is “calculated based on ‘the 13 average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account’ or ‘the average monthly balance in the 14 prisoner’s account’ over a 6-month term; the remainder of the fee is to be paid in ‘monthly 15 payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s 16 account.” Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2)). In short, while 17 prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing upfront, 18 they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. See Bruce v. 19 Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2). 20 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP motion is incomplete because he has not included a certified 21 copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing 22 of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. Without a certified 23 trust account statement, the Court is unable to assess whether any initial partial filing fee 24 may be required to initiate the prosecution of Plaintiff’s case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of 27 $55. 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 not apply to persons 28 1 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Accordingly, the Court: 3 (1) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. No. 2) and DISMISSES 4 || the action without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. $$ 1915(a) & 1914(a). 5 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date this Order to re-open 6 case by either: (a) prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee in one 7 |{lump-sum; or (b) filing a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes a prison 8 || certificate, signed by a trust accounting official attesting as to his trust account balances 9 || and deposits and/or a certified copy of his Inmate Statement Report for the 6-month period 10 || preceding the filing of his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. 11 || CivLR 3.2(b). 12 If Plaintiff chooses not to comply with this Order by either paying the $405 civil 13 || filing fee and administrative fee in full by or submitting a properly supported IFP Motion 14 || within forty-five (45) days, this case will remain dismissed without prejudice and without 15 || further order of the Court based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 16 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved form 17 || “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” 18 19 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: July 21, 2025 € Z 22 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28