Andrew Love, Inmate #26110848 v. Navy Federal Bank
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) filed by a pro se inmate plaintiff who had previously failed to provide financial information. The court denied the motion because the plaintiff's stated assets and income were sufficient to pay the filing fee, and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to pay the required fee.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis“Therefore, because Plaintiff has not shown an inability to pay the filing fee in total, the renewed motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a plaintiff must demonstrate an inability to pay the filing fee to proceed IFP. The order recites that the plaintiff has $5,700 in a checking account and $1,300 monthly income, which is objectively sufficient to pay the $405 fee. The denial follows logically from the facts stated in the order. |
Dismissal of civil action without prejudice for failure to pay filing fee“DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the full statutory administrative $405 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), if a plaintiff is not granted IFP status, they must pay the filing fee to proceed. The court granted a 30-day grace period to pay, which is a common procedural accommodation. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate given the failure to pay the mandatory fee. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory requirement for the filing fee, applies the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the discretion to grant IFP status, and relies on the specific financial facts provided by the plaintiff to justify the denial. The dismissal without prejudice and the 30-day grace period are standard and appropriate remedies for failure to pay the filing fee.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW LOVE, Case No.: 26cv3053-DMS (DEB) INMATE #26110848, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. 1) DENYING RENEWED MOTION 14 TO PROCEED IN FORMA 15 PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 4] NAVY FEDERAL BANK, 16 Defendant. 2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 17 FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 18 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 19 20 On May 18, 2026, Plaintiff Andrew Love, an inmate at the San Diego Central Jail 21 proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 22 accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1-2.) On June 23 15, 2026, the Court denied the IFP motion without prejudice to its renewal due to Plaintiff’s 24 failure to provide the required financial information. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff has now filed 25 a renewed IFP motion. (ECF No. 4.) 26 I. Renewed Motion to Proceed IFP 27 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 28 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 1 |}$405, consisting of a $350 statutory fee plus an additional administrative fee of $55, 2 although the administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. 3 || See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee 4 Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to 5 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 Plaintiff's IFP application indicates he has $5,700 in a checking account at his 8 || financial institution and an income of $1,300 per month. (See ECF No. 4 at 2.) Because 9 || Plaintiff currently has sufficient funds to pay the $405 civil filing fee, he has not shown the 10 |/indigence required to proceed IFP. See O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 11 |} 1990) (the right to proceed in forma pauperis is not absolute); Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 12 ||598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963) (proceeding in forma pauperis is a matter within the sound 13 discretion of the trial court in civil actions). Therefore, because Plaintiff has not shown an 14 || inability to pay the filing fee in total, the renewed motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. 15 Conclusion and Order 16 Accordingly, the Court: 17 1) DENIES Plaintiff's renewed Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 4); 18 2) DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the full statutory 19 administrative $405 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 20 3) Plaintiffis granted thirty (30) days leave from the date this Order is “Filed” in 21 || which to pay the $405 initial civil filing fee. If Plaintiff fails to pay the $405 civil filing 22 || fee this action will remain dismissed without prejudice based solely on his failure to satisfy 23 ||28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)’s fee requirement and without further Order of the Court. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: July 31, 2026 » Yim Yn. 26 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 7 United States District Judge 28 2