Tyler Gamble Covarrubios v. Singleton Schreiber
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee, file a renewed in forma pauperis application, or amend the complaint within the deadline set by a prior order. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with statutory requirements.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety without prejudice“For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice for failure to either pay the filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or properly move to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1) and failure to prosecute.” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally sound. The plaintiff was given a specific deadline to pay fees, file for IFP, or amend the complaint. The plaintiff failed to take any of these actions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court must dismiss a case if the plaintiff fails to pay the fee or obtain IFP status. Additionally, failure to comply with a court order to amend or prosecute can support a dismissal under Rule 41(b). The citation to Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc. supports the proposition that failure to respond to a court's ultimatum regarding amendment warrants dismissal. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the plaintiff's failure to comply with the prior order's requirements (pay fee, file IFP, or amend). It cites the relevant statutes and a binding Ninth Circuit case supporting dismissal for failure to prosecute/respond to an ultimatum. The reasoning is direct and supported by the record facts stated in the order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYLER GAMBLE COVARRUBIOS, Case No.: 26-cv-1146-RSH-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE
14 SINGLETON SCREIBER,
15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 On February 23, 2026, plaintiff Tyler Gamble Covarrubios, proceeding pro se, filed 20 this action along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. On 21 March 2, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP motion and dismissed the action without 22 prejudice and with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 3. The 23 Court ordered Plaintiff to: (1) pay the filing fee of $405 or file a renewed application to 24 proceed IFP; and (2) file an amended complaint addressing deficiencies set forth in the 25 Court’s March 2, 2026 Order within thirty days—or by April 1, 2026. Id. at 4. 26 To date, Plaintiff has not paid the $405 filing fee, filed a renewed IFP application, 27 filed an amended complaint, or sought an extension of time. For these reasons, the Court 28 DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice for failure to either pay the 1 || filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or properly move to proceed IFP pursuant 2 ||to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1) 3 ||and failure to prosecute. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 4 ||2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either 5 || by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so—is properly 6 ||met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”). The Clerk of Court is directed to close 7 || the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: April 2, 2026 fekut C / ‘ 10 □ 1 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28