Royzman v. Lopez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTEM ROYZMAN, Case No.: 3:21-cv-1429-BAS-AHG CDCR #AM6676, 12 1) DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. [ECF No. 2] 14 MIQUEL LOPEZ, ALEJANDRO 15 2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION GONZALES, EDGAR GARCIA, FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE 16 Defendants. FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 17 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 18 19 Artem Royzman (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently incarcerated at R.J. Donovan 20 State Prison (“RJD”) located in San Diego, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a 21 civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did 22 not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action when he 23 filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) 25 I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 26 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 27 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 28 $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 1 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 3 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner granted leave to proceed 4 IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. 5 Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84–85 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 6 2015), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatorre, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a 9 “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 10 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified 12 trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 13 monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance 14 in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no 15 assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody 16 of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding 17 month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those 18 payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 19 577 U.S. at 84–85. 20 In support of his request to proceed IFP, Plaintiff has submitted a prison certificate 21 authorized by an RJD accounting official and a copy of his CDCR Inmate Statement 22 Report. (ECF No. 3.) These documents show that for the preceding six months, Plaintiff 23 carried an average monthly balance of $733.94 and average monthly deposits of $293.84. 24 (ECF No. 3 at 1.) The balance in Plaintiff’s trust account as of August 11, 2021, was 25 $1,011.42. (Id. at 1, 3.) 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 In this matter, Plaintiff has not shown the indigence required to proceed IFP. 2 Because Plaintiff has shown that he is able to pay the filing fee in total, Plaintiff’s Motion 3 to Proceed IFP is DENIED. 4 5 II. Conclusion and Order 6 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2); 7 and DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the full statutory and 8 administrative $402 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 9 To have the case reopened, Plaintiff must, on or before September 8, 2021, pay the 10 $402 initial civil filing fee. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: August 11, 2021 14 Hon. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28