Williams v. Morales
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a civil action filed by a pro se prisoner who had not prepaid the filing fee or submitted a valid motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and granted the plaintiff 45 days to pay the fee or file a proper IFP motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.“DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and Section 1915(a)” | agree with court The court correctly identified that under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a civil action must be accompanied by the filing fee or a grant of IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The plaintiff failed to provide the required affidavit and motion for IFP status, rendering the action incomplete. Dismissal without prejudice is the standard procedural remedy to allow the plaintiff to cure the defect. |
Granting of 45 days leave to prepay the filing fee or file a complete Motion to Proceed IFP.“GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP” | agree with court Providing a specific deadline to cure a procedural deficiency is within the court's discretion and promotes access to the courts for pro se litigants. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory requirements for filing fees and IFP status. It accurately cites the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the necessity of IFP status to proceed without prepayment and the specific documentation required for prisoner plaintiffs. The dismissal without prejudice and the grant of time to cure are appropriate procedural measures.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RENO WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:20-cv-1053-AJB-KSC CDCR # G-06940, 11 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 12 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. FOR FAILING TO PAY 13 FILING FEE REQUIRED 14 BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR J. MORALES, et al., FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED 15 Defendants. IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
17 18 19 Plaintiff Reno Williams, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at Centinela 20 State Prison has filed a civil action. (See ECF No. 1, Compl.) Plaintiff has not prepaid the 21 filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) or filed a motion to proceed in forma 22 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). 23 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 26 27 28 1 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 Section 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). However, if the Plaintiff is a 5 prisoner, and even if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he remains obligated 6 to pay the entire filing fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 7 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 8 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to 10 commence this civil action. Although Plaintiff has filed a copy of his prison trust account 11 statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint as required by 28 12 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(2), see ECF No. 3, he has not submitted an affidavit and properly 13 supported Motion to Proceed IFP as required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(1). The more 14 than five month old affidavit attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint, see Compl. at 9, does not 15 satisfy this requirement either. As a result, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 16 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 17 II. Conclusion and Order 18 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 19 (1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the 20 $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and Section 1915(a); and 22 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is 23 filed to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 27 administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019)). The additional $50 28 1 ||complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes an affidavit of Plaintiff’ s 2 || assets and a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding 3 || the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2(b). 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff 5 || with this Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to 6 || Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee or 7 ||complete and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will 8 ||remain dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the fee 9 ||requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and without further Order of the Court. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: June 16, 2020 © 12 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
Cites, in this corpus
- Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo 13-56004 · 2015-01-07