Rivera v. Clark
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 57
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se state prisoner's motion for an extension of time to satisfy the filing fee requirement and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted both motions, allowing the petitioner to proceed without prepaying fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for extension of time to satisfy the filing fee requirement granted“For good cause shown, and because Petitioner’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis was constructively filed only one day late, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to satisfy the filing fee requirement.” | agree with court The court found good cause based on the one-day delay and the constructive filing date. This is a discretionary procedural ruling that appears consistent with the facts recited in the order. |
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted“Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and allows him to prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security.” | agree with court The petitioner demonstrated inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee by showing a trust account balance of $0.75. This satisfies the requirement for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the mailbox rule to determine the filing date and grants IFP status based on the petitioner's demonstrated lack of funds. The reasoning is straightforward and supported by the cited authority and the record.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKEY V. RIVERA, Case No.: 20cv1831-GPC (RBM)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. ENLARGE TIME TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT AND 14 KEN CLARK, Warden, GRANTING MOTION TO 15 Respondent. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 17 On September 9, 2020, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, constructively 18 filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 (ECF No. 1.) 19 On September 17, 2010, the Court dismissed this action because Petitioner had failed to 20 pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 21 Petitioner was instructed that to have this action reopened he was required to pay the filing 22 fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by November 17, 2020. (Id. at 1.) 23 Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on November 16, 2020. (ECF 24 No. 3.) On November 17, 2020, the Court denied the motion because it did not include the 25 26 1 Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the “mailbox” rule which provides that his pro se 27 filings are considered to have been constructively filed as of the date they are handed to prison authorities for mailing to a court. Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574-75 (9th 28 1 ||required certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. (ECF No. 4.) The Court 2 extended the time to file a properly supported in forma pauperis application until December 3 || 17, 2020. Ud. at 2.) On December 16, 2020, Petitioner constructively filed a request for 4 || extension of time based on a delay in obtaining trust account statements due to the ongoing 5 ||pandemic. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner constructively filed a renewed motion to proceed in 6 || forma pauperis on December 18, 2020, accompanied by a certified copy of his trust account 7 || statement. (ECF No. 6.) 8 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 9 For good cause shown, and because Petitioner’s renewed motion to proceed in forma 10 || pauperis was constructively filed only one day late, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 11 motion for an extension of time to satisfy the filing fee requirement. 12 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 Petitioner has $0.75 on account at the California correctional institution in which he 14 |/is presently confined (ECF No. 6 at 2, 4), and cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the 15 ||Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and allows him to 16 || prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and 17 || without being required to post security. 18 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to 20 || satisfy the filing fee requirement (ECF No. 5) and GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed 21 forma pauperis (ECF No. 6). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: January 6, 2021 25 Hon. athe Ck 26 United States District Judge 27 28