Stika v. McCauley
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered a civil action filed by a pro se plaintiff who failed to pay the mandatory filing fee or obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee.“Consequently, the Court dismisses this Action without prejudice for failure to pay the mandatory fee.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), which mandates a $400 filing fee for civil actions. The plaintiff did not pay the fee and did not file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) as required by Civil Local Rule 3.2.a. The dismissal is without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to refile if they pay the fee or obtain IFP status. The reasoning is consistent with the statutory requirements and local rules. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory requirement for the filing fee, the alternative path of IFP, and the local rule requirement for the IFP affidavit. The facts (failure to pay, no IFP motion) support the dismissal. The dismissal is without prejudice, which is the appropriate remedy for a curable procedural defect like non-payment of fees.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Matt Stika, Case No.: 19-cv-00677-GPC-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE. 14 Kevin McCauley, in his official capacity as a Sheriff Deputy and his individual 15 capacity, 16 Defendant. 17 18 This Order arises from Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee for his Complaint. 19 (ECF No. 1.) All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court 20 of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee 21 of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 22 prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions 24 sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the 25 applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes a statement of all assets which shows 26 inability to pay initial fees or give security. Civil Local Rule 3.2.a. 27 / / / 1 Here, Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 11, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was 2 || transferred to this Court on April 17, 2020. (ECF No. 2.) More than one year has elapsed 3 || since the filing of the complaint, and Plaintiff has yet to pay the filing fee. Consequently, 4 ||the Court dismisses this Action without prejudice for failure to pay the mandatory fee. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 apho Ck ) 6 Dated: April 30, 2020 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28