Ahlering v. Regents Of The University Of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se complaint filed without the required filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and ordered the plaintiff to pay the fee or file an IFP motion within 21 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee.“Consequently, Ahlering’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to pay the requisite filing fee.” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally correct. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a civil action must be accompanied by a filing fee. If the fee is not paid and the plaintiff has not been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court lacks the authority to proceed with the case. Dismissing without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the defect by paying the fee or obtaining IFP status, which is the standard remedy in the Ninth Circuit for this procedural failure. |
Order requiring the plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 21 days.“No later than twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date this Order is electronically docketed, Mr. Ahlering must either pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court This directive is consistent with local rules and federal practice regarding the cure of filing fee deficiencies. It provides the plaintiff a specific timeframe to regularize the status of the action. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural defect (failure to pay fees or file IFP motion) and applies the correct statutory and case law authorities to dismiss the case without prejudice. The footnote regarding subject matter jurisdiction is a prudent observation, noting that if the case were refiled, the court would need to assess diversity jurisdiction given the state law claims and California citizenship of defendants. The reasoning is direct and legally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW J. AHLERING, Decedent; Case No.: 18-CV-2631 JLS (AGS) ANDREW J. AHLERING, II, Next of 12 Line Kensington, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY Plaintiffs, FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 14 v. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 15 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF (ECF No. 1) 16 CALIFORNIA d/b/a UC Health f/d/b/a UCSD Health Hillcrest, d/b/a UCLA, 17 d/b/a UCLA P.D.; JERRALD BROWN, 18 Governor; GAVIN NEWSOM, Lt. Governor; DOES Dr. 1–100; and 19 DOES OTHER 101–1000,, 20 Defendants. 21 22 On November 16, 2018, Plaintiff Andrew J. Ahlering, II, proceeding pro se, filed a 23 Complaint alleging causes of action for ID theft and false imprisonment, medical 24 malpractice, conspiracy to commit homicide, and wrongful death arising out of the death 25 of his father, Andrew J. Ahlering. See generally ECF No. 1. He seeks injunctive relief 26 and damages in an amount not less than $10 million. Id. at Prayer. 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 ||$400.! 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 in forma pauperis pursuant to 3 1128 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 4 || Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 5 In the nine months since he filed his Complaint, Mr. Ahlering has not paid the 6 ||required $400 filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Consequently, 7 Ahlering’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 8 || failure to pay the requisite filing fee. No later than twenty-one (21) calendar days from the 9 || date this Order is electronically docketed, Mr. Ahlering must either pay the filing fee or 10 || move to proceed in forma pauperis.2, Should Mr. Ahlering fail to pay the filing fee or 11 ||move_ to proceed in forma pauperis, this action will remain dismissed □□□□□□□ 12 || prejudice. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 ||Dated: August 21, 2019 al. 16 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. See 28 4 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2016). The additional $50 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. /d. 25 > The Court notes that it is also doubtful that it has jurisdiction over Mr. Ahlering’s Complaint, which 26 || asserts state law causes of action against Defendants that appear to be citizens of California. Should > Mr. Ahlering choose to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will be obligated 7 to assess its jurisdiction. See Wilson v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2016) (‘[Courts] have an 28 independent obligation ‘to examine jurisdictional issues . . . [sua sponte].””) (third alteration in original) (quoting B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch, Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999)).