Wagner v. 5280 Bail Bonds

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE WAGNER, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01307-CAB-DEB Booking No. 25726367, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. AND TO STAY AND DISMISSING 14 CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT 5280 BAIL BONDS, et al., 15 PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO Defendants. PAY FILING FEE REQUIRED 16 BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 17 [Doc. Nos. 2, 3] 18 19 20 Plaintiff Jesse Wagner, currently detained at George Bailey Detention Facility in San 21 Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil action while detained at the 22 Crowley County Correctional Facility in Colorado, alleging diversity jurisdiction pursuant 23 to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. [See Compl.] Plaintiff, who alleges to reside in San Diego and to be 24 the managing partner of Fugitive Warrants, a “private investigation company,” claims a 25 Colorado Bail Bonds company, one of its employees, and ten unidentified Does 26 fraudulently converted ownership of a 2014 Ford Taurus owned by Fugitive Warrants after 27 28 1 his arrest in Denver in 2023. [See id. at 1‒3.] 2 Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and has since filed 3 a notice of change of address indicating he is now in the custody of the San Diego County 4 Sheriff’s Department.2 [See Doc. Nos. 2, 3.] Plaintiff also requests a stay of the case for 5 120 days based on his lack of library access. [See Doc. No. 3 at 1.] 6 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 7 Generally, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court 8 of the United States must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may 9 proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the fee only if he is granted leave to proceed 10 11 1 The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s prior conviction in San Bernardino County 12 Superior Court Case No. FVA020520 for impersonating an officer, robbery, being an ex- 13 convict in a custodial facility, possessing a deadly weapon, and false impersonation while working as a bail bondsman and bounty hunter. See People v. Wagner, No. E041850, 2008 14 WL 3856682, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2008); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 15 (9th Cir. 2007) (a court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at 16 issue.’”) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). 17 2 Plaintiff claims to have been transferred from custody in Colorado to California pursuant 18 to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), Cal. Penal Code § 1389. See Doc. No. 19 3 at 1. “The IAD provides that where a prisoner incarcerated in one state makes a proper request for trial of ‘any untried indictment’ pending in another state ‘on the basis of which 20 a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner,’ the prisoner must be ‘brought to trial’ 21 within 180 days of the request[.]” Tinghitella v. California, 718 F.2d 308, 311 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (citing Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, Pub. L. No. 91–538, art. 22 III(a), 84 Stat. 1397 (1970)); see Sills v. Busby, No. 10-CV-2650-H KSC, 2012 WL 23 4107977, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2012). San Diego County Sheriff’s Office’s online custody records indicate Plaintiff is currently charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment 24 with violence, burglary, being a convicted felon in possession of body armor, making false 25 arrest, and exhibiting a deadly weapon in San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCS323653. See https://apps.sdsheriff.net/wij/wijDetail.aspx?BookNum=1izd Flr3UuLt 26 125LStOZZO7xUApzmmIRhR2mcff7WvY%3d (Wagner, Jesse) (last visited July 30, 2025); 27 Malkin v. Fed. Ins. Co., 562 F. Supp. 3d 854, 861 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (“the court can take judicial notice of [p]ublic records and government documents available from reliable 28 1 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 2 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP 3 remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 4 84 (2016), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 5 1915(b)(1) & (2). 6 Section 1915(a)(1) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 7 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 8 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 9 Cir. 2015). In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must also submit a “certified 10 copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month 11 period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). It is 12 from the certified trust account statement that the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% 13 of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average 14 monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless he has 15 no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); (b)(4). The institution having custody of the 16 prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s 17 income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to 18 the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 19 85‒86. 20 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action when he filed 21 his complaint, and his motion to proceed IFP fails to include both the affidavit required by 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the certified copies of his trust funds account statements 23 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). “When a claim of poverty is made under section 1915 24 ‘it is proper and indeed essential for the supporting affidavits to state the facts as to affiant’s 25 poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” United States v. McQuade, 26 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 27 (9th Cir. 1960)). 28 Therefore, unless Plaintiff either pays the filing fee or files a properly supported 1 |} motion to proceed IFP that includes both an affidavit that meets the requirements set out in 2 ||28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and certified copies of his prison trust account statements as 3 ||required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 4 || Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051. 5 Hl. CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, the Court: 7 1. DENIES Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] and DISMISSES 8 this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to pay the $405 civil 9 filing and administrative fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 10 2. DENIES Plaintiff's motion to stay the case as moot [Doc. No. 3]; and 11 3. GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this order to re- 12 open his case by: (a) prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee 13 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) in full; or (b) filing a motion to proceed IFP and 14 declaration in support of the motion that complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2) 15 and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). Should Plaintiff neither pay the $405 filing fee in full 16 nor file a complete, renewed motion and declaration to proceed IFP within 45 days, 17 this civil action will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1914 (a). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 26, 2025 □ Z 22 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 4 oe