Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to confirm an arbitration award. The court denied the IFP motion because the plaintiff failed to complete the required financial form, dismissed the case without prejudice, and granted the plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing fee or submit additional documentation.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED” | agree with court The court correctly denied the motion because the plaintiff failed to provide the necessary financial information required by the IFP application form. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court cannot grant IFP status without a showing of inability to pay, which requires a completed affidavit or form. |
Case Dismissed Without Prejudice“and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.” | agree with court Dismissal without prejudice is the standard procedural consequence when a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee and is denied IFP status. The dismissal allows the plaintiff to refile if they later pay the fee or successfully establish IFP status. |
30 Days Leave to Pay Filing Fee or Submit Documentation“Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to pay the $402 filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding his economic status.” | agree with court Granting a short period to cure the deficiency in the IFP application or pay the fee is a common and reasonable procedural accommodation for pro se litigants, ensuring due process before final dismissal. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the deficiency in the IFP motion (incomplete form), applies the standard remedy (denial and dismissal without prejudice), and provides a clear path for the plaintiff to cure the deficiency. The citation to Wong v. Bell is appropriate for the court's inherent authority to dismiss for failure to state a claim, although the current dismissal is based on failure to pay the fee, not the merits. The warning about frivolousness is a helpful advisory note for the plaintiff's next step.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISMAEL RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 21cv236 DMS (LL)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER(1) DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING CASE 14 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; JOHN WITHOUT PREJUDICE RICHARD SHREWSBERRY; 15 SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND 16 HAMPTON, LLP; JOHN C. DINEEN, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, 21 along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court is unable to determine 22 whether Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this case because he failed to answer all of 23 the questions on the form motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is 24 DENIED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Pursuant to this Order, 25 Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to pay the $402 filing fee required to maintain this action 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 ||pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding his 2 ||economic status." 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: May 27, 2021 em Dh 5 a Yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 6 United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 54 ' The Court notes that if Plaintiff chooses to either pay the filing fee or submit additional information in support of his motion to proceed IFP, that he should also be prepared to 25 ||explain why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous, consistent with Lankford v. 5 Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 3:20-mc-00001, 2020 WL 6828223 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 6 20, 2020), and Melicia v. O’Shea, No. 3:20-mc-62-MOC-DSC, 2020 WL 2512984 27 || (W.D.N.C. May 15, 2020). See Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981) (stating 28 trial court “may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim” after giving plaintiff notice and an opportunity to be heard).