Romero Rodriguez v. Oliver
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se detainee's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and found it incomplete because the plaintiff failed to provide a certified copy of his trust account statement for the preceding six months. The court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the civil action without prejudice, granting the plaintiff until September 6, 2025, 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“Accordingly, the Court: (1) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. 2)” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), which mandates that a prisoner seeking IFP status must submit a certified copy of their trust fund account statement for the six months preceding the filing. The order recites that the plaintiff failed to include this document. Without this information, the court cannot calculate the initial partial filing fee required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Therefore, the denial is procedurally and substantively correct based on the statutory requirements. |
Dismissal of Civil Action Without Prejudice“and DISMISSES the action without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) & 1914(a).” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a civil action cannot proceed without the payment of the filing fee unless IFP status is granted. Because the IFP motion was denied due to 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 the specified timeframe, consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior). |
Grant of Time to Cure Deficiency“(2) GRANTS Plaintiff until September 6, 2025 to either: (a) prepay the entire civil filing and administrative fee in one lump-sum; or (b) file a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to provide a specific deadline for the plaintiff to cure the procedural defect. This is a standard and equitable practice in pro se litigation to ensure due process and access to the courts, allowing the plaintiff a final opportunity to comply with statutory requirements before the dismissal becomes final. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and the PLRA. It accurately cites binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Andrews, Hymas) and Supreme Court precedent (Bruce) to support the conclusion that the absence of the certified trust account statement prevents the court from assessing the initial partial fee, thereby necessitating the denial of the IFP motion and dismissal of the case. The court also appropriately provided a mechanism for the plaintiff to cure the defect.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ROMERO RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 3:25-cv-0420-RBM-BLM Booking #24716406, 12 ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION Plaintiff, 13 TO PROCEED IN FORMA vs. PAUPERIS [Doc. 2]AND 14 15 (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION P. OLIVER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 16 Defendant. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEES 17 REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 18 19 20 Eric Romero Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”), a detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a civil 21 rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) In lieu of paying the filing fee 22 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 23 (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 2.) For the reasons discussed below, the 24 Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion and DISMISSES the action without prejudice. 25 I. IFP MOTION 26 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 27 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 28 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); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 20 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 21 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is incomplete because he has not included a certified 22 copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing 23 of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. Without a certified 24 25 26 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 27 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 || trust account statement, the Court is unable to assess whether any initial partial filing fee 2 ||may be required to initiate the prosecution of Plaintiff's case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 3 Il. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 Accordingly, the Court: 5 (1) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. 2) and DISMISSES the 6 action without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) & 1914(a). 7 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff until September 6, 2025 to either: (a) prepay the entire 8 civil filing and administrative fee in one lump-sum; or (b) file a renewed Motion to 9 Proceed IFP, which includes a prison certificate, signed by a trust accounting official 10 || attesting as to his trust account balances and deposits and/or a certified copy of his Inmate 11 || Statement Report for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint pursuant to 12 ||28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 13 If Plaintiff chooses not to comply with this Order by either paying the $405 civil 14 || filing fee and administrative fee in full by or submitting a properly supported IFP Motion 15 September 6, 2025, this case will remain dismissed without prejudice and without 16 || further order of the Court based on Plaintiffs failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 17 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved form 18 || “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: August 21, 2025 Fe Ba Gs ? L □ HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 VAL .. NAAN DDAA DTV