Winfield v. Strauss
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a civil rights action filed by a self-represented plaintiff who had not paid the required filing fees or moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice, granting the plaintiff until October 31, 2025, to pay the fees or file a proper IFP motion to reopen the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Case dismissed without prejudice“Because Winfield has not paid any filing fees, nor received Court approval not to prepay them, his case is DISMSSED without prejudice, and the Clerk must close this case.” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally correct because a civil action is not properly commenced until the filing fee is paid or the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court provided a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect by setting a deadline to pay or file an IFP motion, which aligns with standard district court practice for curing fee deficiencies. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural requirement to pay filing fees or obtain IFP status to maintain a case. It accurately cites the relevant statutes and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding prisoner litigation fees. The remedy of dismissal without prejudice with a specific deadline to cure the defect is standard and appropriate. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this procedural matter.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Michael WINFIELD, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2456-AGS-MMP 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 6 vs. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 7 R. STRAUSS, 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 In this civil-rights action, self-represented plaintiff Michael Winfield has neither 12 paid the required filing fees nor moved to proceed without prepaying them. His case must 13 therefore be dismissed. 14 Parties instituting civil actions in United States district courts must pay $405 in filing 15 fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. 16 Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). But plaintiffs granted the right to proceed in forma 17 pauperis need not pay those fees. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 Even if their cases are ultimately dismissed, plaintiffs like Winfield who are prisoners— 19 even if granted IFP status––remain obligated to pay the filing fee in “increments.” See 20 Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015); 28 US.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2). 21 Because Winfield has not paid any filing fees, nor received Court approval not to 22 prepay them, his case is DISMSSED without prejudice, and the Clerk must close this case. 23 If Winfield wishes to proceed, by October 31, 2025, he must either: (a) prepay the entire 24 $405 civil filing and administrative fees in full; or (b) complete and file a motion to proceed 25 IFP that includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the six-month period 26 preceding the filing of his complaint. See U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); CivLR 3.2(b). The Clerk is 27 directed to send, along with this order, a copy of this Court’s approved form IFP motion. 28 If Winfield pays the fees or files a motion to proceed IFP by the deadline, the Clerk 1 || will reopen the case. If he has done neither by the deadline, the Clerk will issue a judgment 2 || of dismissal. 3 Dated: September 22, 2025 5 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 a □□
Cites, in this corpus
- Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo 13-56004 · 2015-01-07