In Re Mamady B. Cisse
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se bankruptcy appeal where the appellant failed to pay the required filing fee after a fee waiver was denied and a deadline was set. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and ordered the case closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of action without prejudice for failure to pay filing fee“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ferdik factors to determine that dismissal was appropriate given the appellant's failure to pay the fee, request an extension, or take any other action after being warned of the consequences. The dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy for non-payment of filing fees in this context. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It recites the procedural history (fee waiver denial, deadline set, warning given), states the facts (non-payment, no extension request, no action), cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority for the standard (Ferdik) and the specific power to dismiss for non-payment (Perroton/Olivarez), and applies the factors to the facts. The result follows logically from the law and the record.
Opinion
4 5 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 In re MAMADY B. CISSE, Case No. 20-cv-01694-BAS-WVG 11 Bankruptcy No. 17-04821-LT13 Debtor. 12 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 13 MAMADY B. CISSE, 14 Appellant, 15 v. 16 WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., as servicing agent for U.S. Bank National 17 Association, as Indenture Trustee for Citigroup Mortgage, 18 Appellee. 19 20 Appellant Mamady B. Cisse, proceeding pro se, commenced this bankruptcy appeal 21 on August 31, 2020 and moved for a ruling on a fee waiver request. (ECF Nos. 1, 8.) The 22 Court, in agreement with the Bankruptcy Court’s certification that the appeal was not taken 23 in good faith, denied Appellant’s fee waiver request and required that Appellant pay the 24 filing fee by November 16, 2020. (ECF No. 10.) The Court warned Appellant that failing 25 to timely pay the fee would result in dismissal of the appeal without prejudice. (Id.) 26 As of the date of this Order, Appellant has not paid the filing fee for this case, 27 requested an extension of time to do so, or otherwise taken any action in this case. 28 Nonpayment of a filing fee is a sufficient basis for dismissal of an action, particularly when 1 Court cautioned Appellant that it would dismiss the action if the filing fee was not paic 2 ||by the deadline. See Crump vy. Fritter, No. LA CV 15-06041 VBF (FFM), 2016 WL 3 118260455, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2016) (citing cases); see also Harris v. Madden, No 4 |] 1:19-CV-01216-DAD-SKO (PC), 2020 WL 1139464, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2020) 5 || (dismissing action without prejudice for failing to pay required filing fee and obey a cour 6 || order); Nicholas vy. All-State Sec. LLC, No. CIV. 11-00005 LEK-KS, 2011 WL 1322273, a 7 (D. Haw. Apr. 5, 2011) (citing In re Perroton, 958 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1992) and Olivare: 8 || v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995)) (“This Court may dismiss Plaintiff’s action basec 9 his failure to pay the required filing fee.”). 10 After weighing the relevant factors, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-6] 11 Cir. 1992), the Court finds that Appellant’s failure to timely pay the filing fee ir 12 || accordance with the Court’s order warrants dismissal. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES 13 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action. See Crump, 2016 WL 8260455, at *2 (citing cases) 14 || The Clerk is instructed to close this case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 / ul 17 || DATED: December 18, 2020 Cypilig _| Hohe A 18 United States Daarict Jalge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28