Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER F. PAYNE, Case No.: 3:26-cv-0379-BTM-KSC CDCR # CC-6128, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY v. FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 14 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) OR MOVE TO CITY OF SAN DIEGO, LA MESA 15 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS POLICE DEP’T, CITY OF LA MESA, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 16 17 Defendants. [ECF NO. 1] 18 19 20 Plaintiff Christopher Payne, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 21 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants 22 violated his constitutional rights by declining to approve him for “mental health diversion,” 23 related to a criminal case. (See id.) As discussed below, the action must be dismissed 24 without prejudice. 25 I. FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 26 The action must be dismissed because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or moved 27 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). All parties instituting any civil action, suit or 28 proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas 1 corpus, must pay a total filing fee of $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A civil action may 2 proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to 3 proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 4 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains 5 obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 6 U.S. 82, 84 (2016), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed, see 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Because Plaintiff has neither prepaid the $405 fee required to commence this civil 9 action, nor submitted an IFP Motion, his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 10 Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 11 II. CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, the Court: 13 (1) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice based on 14 Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $405 fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP. 15 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed 16 to: (a) prepay the entire $405 in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP 17 which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the six-month period 18 preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 19 3.2(b).2 20 21 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 22 fee of $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 23 persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 24 2 Plaintiff is cautioned that—even if he pays the full $405 civil filing fee or submits a 25 properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP—his Complaint will be subject to an initial review. 26 His complaint may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays the full filing fee at once, or is granted IFP status 27 and is obligated to pay the full filing fee in installments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126‒ 27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the 28 l (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved 2 ||form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for his use and 3 |}convenience. Should Plaintiff neither pay the $405 filing fee in full nor sufficiently 4 || complete and file the attached Motion and Declaration to Proceed IFP by May 8, 2026, the 5 || Clerk of the Court will enter judgment dismissing this action. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 23, 2026 Til Lusch Honore Barry Ted Hehe 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || ———— 26 state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 27 || 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 28 of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”).