gno.law

Bonilla v. Sabraw

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-00920 · 2020-08-25 · Unknown

Proceeding
district
Area
civil
Panel
Janis L. Sammartino (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:33Z · confidence high

Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint alleging his criminal trial court lacked jurisdiction but failed to pay the $400 filing fee or file a 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 compliant IFP motion.

What the court decidedThe model
Dismissal of civil action without prejudice
“DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a).”
agree with court
The dismissal is procedurally correct because 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) requires a $400 filing fee for civil actions, and the plaintiff neither paid the fee nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court correctly identified that the action cannot proceed without satisfying one of these requirements.
Grant of 45 days to pay fee or file IFP motion
“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 which includes a certified copy of his trust account statements for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint.”
agree with court
Granting a specific period to cure the deficiency is a standard procedural mechanism in the Ninth Circuit for pro se litigants who have failed to pay fees or file IFP motions. The court correctly cited the local rule (S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b)) and federal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2)) requiring the certified trust account statement.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory requirements for filing a civil action (payment of fee or IFP motion) and the specific requirements for prisoners under the PLRA (certified trust account statements). The dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy when a plaintiff fails to satisfy the initial filing requirements, and the 45-day grace period is consistent with local rules and Ninth Circuit practice for pro se litigants. The order does not reach the merits of the plaintiff's claim (jurisdiction of the criminal trial court), which is appropriate at this stage.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case No.: 3:20-CV-0920 JLS (KSC) CDCR #J-48500, 11 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 12 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. 13 14 DANA M. SABRAW, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated at San 18 Quentin State Prison, filed a civil action entitled “Civil Rights Complaint (28 U.S.C. 19 § 1361).” Compl., ECF No. 1. He alleges the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his criminal 20 case. Id. Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), 21 however, and has not filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 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 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 27 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 1 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 2 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s 3 (“PLRA”) amendments to § 1915 require that all prisoners who proceed IFP to pay the 4 entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); 5 Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether their 6 action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 7 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 9 of fees to file an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and demonstrates 10 an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In 11 support of this affidavit, the PLRA also requires prisoners to submit a “certified copy of 12 the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period 13 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. 14 King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the 15 Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account 16 for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six 17 months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then 19 collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any 20 month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until 21 the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629. 22 Because Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to 23 commence a civil action, nor filed a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 25 F.3d at 1051. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 II. Conclusion and Order 2 Accordingly, the Court: 3 (1) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to 4 pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP 5 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a). 6 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed 7 to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and 8 file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statements 9 for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); 10 S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 11 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with the Court’s 12 approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma 13 Pauperis.”1 If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee or fully complete and 14 submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will remain 15 / / / 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 20 21 1 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed by either prepaying the full $400 civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will 22 be screened before service and may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays the full $400 filing fee at once, or is granted IFP status and is obligated to pay the full filing fee in 24 installments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting 25 that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks 26 damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 27 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or 28 1 ||dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)’s fee 2 requirement and without further Order of the Court. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: August 25, 2020 tt , 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 oo

Cites, in this corpus