Kelvin Scott Chessman v. C. Parkhill; K. Santana; M. Burke; Alonzo; R. Zabala; John Doe, Appeals Coordinator; John Doe, K-9 Handler
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and found that the plaintiff's prison trust account balance demonstrated an ability to pay the full filing fee. The court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the civil action without prejudice, granting the plaintiff 45 days to pay the $405 filing fee.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) denied“In this matter, Plaintiff has not shown the indigence required to proceed IFP. Therefore, because Plaintiff has shown that he is able to pay the filing fee in total, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requirement that a prisoner must submit a certified trust account statement. The order recites that the plaintiff's average monthly balance was $1,054.06 and his current balance was $1,083.83. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner with assets is not indigent for IFP purposes if they can pay the fee. Since the plaintiff's balance exceeds the $405 filing fee, the denial is supported by the record and the statute. |
Civil action dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay filing fee“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the full statutory and administrative $405 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed in which to pay the $405 civil filing fee.” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a civil action cannot be commenced without payment of the filing fee unless the plaintiff is granted IFP status. Because the IFP motion was properly denied, the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the case until the fee was paid. Dismissing without prejudice and providing a deadline to pay is the standard procedural remedy in this context. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory provisions (28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a), 1915(b)) and binding Ninth Circuit precedent. The court correctly identified that the plaintiff's trust account balance exceeded the filing fee, thereby negating the claim of indigence. The dismissal without prejudice and the 45-day window to pay are standard and appropriate remedies.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KELVIN SCOTT CHESSMAN, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1049-WQH-DDL CDCR #G35578 12 DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED Plaintiff, 13 IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. [ECF No. 2] 14 C. PARKHILL; K. SANTANA; M. 15 DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR BURKE; ALONZO; R. ZABALA; JOHN FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING 16 DOE, Appeals Coordinator; JOHN DOE, FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § K-9 Handler 17 1914(a) Defendants. 18 19 HAYES, Judge: 20 On February 6, 2026, Kelvin Scott Chessman (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate proceeding 21 pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff 22 did not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action when 23 he filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) For the reason discussed below, the Court 25 denies the IFP motion and dismisses the action without prejudice 26 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 27 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 28 1 $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 4 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner granted leave to proceed 5 IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. 6 Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84–85 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 7 2015), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. 8 §§ 1915(b)(1), (2); Taylor v. Delatorre, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a 10 “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 11 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified 13 trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 14 monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance 15 in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no 16 assets. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1), (4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then 17 collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any 18 month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until 19 the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 84–85. 20 In support of his IFP motion, Plaintiff has submitted a prison certificate authorized 21 by a prison accounting official and a copy of his Inmate Statement Report. See ECF No. 3; 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. These 23 documents show that for the six months immediately preceding filing of the Complaint, 24 Plaintiff carried an average monthly balance of $1,054.06 and average monthly deposits of 25 $351.17. (ECF No. 3 at 7.) The balance in Plaintiff’s trust account as of February 19, 2026 26 was $1,083.83. Id. at 5, 7. 27 In this matter, Plaintiff has not shown the indigence required to proceed IFP. 28 Therefore, because Plaintiff has shown that he is able to pay the filing fee in total, Plaintiff’s 1 || Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED. 2 Hi. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed 4 || IFP (ECF No. 2). 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DISMISSES this action without 6 ||prejudice for failure to pay the full statutory and administrative $405 civil filing fee 7 || required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave 8 || from the date this Order is filed in which to pay the $405 civil filing fee. 9 10 11 |}Dated: February 27, 2026 BE: te Z. Ma 12 Hon. William Q. Hayes B3 United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo 13-56004 · 2015-01-07