Tyler v. Gomez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil rights action. The court denied the motion and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, granting the plaintiff 30 days to pay.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown the indigence required to proceed IFP. Therefore, because Plaintiff is able to pay the filing fee in total, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requirement that a prisoner must submit a certified trust account statement. The order recites that the plaintiff had an average monthly balance of $2,790.48 and a current balance of $2,700.77. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and (b)(1), a prisoner with significant assets (specifically, a balance well above the $10 threshold and an average balance far exceeding the filing fee) is not indigent. The court's conclusion that the plaintiff is able to pay the fee in total is supported by the recited financial data. |
Dismissal of Civil Action for Failure to Pay Filing Fee“DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the full statutory and administrative $402 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);” | agree with court Because the motion to proceed IFP was denied, the plaintiff was required to pay the full filing fee to initiate the action. The dismissal without prejudice is the standard procedural consequence when a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee and is not granted IFP status. The court granted 30 days to pay, which is a common practice to allow the plaintiff to cure the defect. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and applies the relevant statutes and case law accurately. It correctly identifies the financial threshold for indigency under the PLRA and applies it to the specific facts (high trust account balance) provided in the record. The dismissal without prejudice and the 30-day grace period are standard and appropriate remedies.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDIE TYLER Case No.: 3:22-cv-1906-DMS-DEB CDCR #K-19763, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. 1) DENYING MOTION TO 14 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 [ECF No. 2] B. GOMEZ; LOPEZ; 16 E. RODRIGUEZ , 2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 17 Defendants. FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 18 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 19 20 21 22 23 Claudie Tyler (“Plaintiff” or “Tyler”), currently incarcerated at the Richard J. 24 Donovan State Prison (“RJD”) located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, 25 filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 26 has not prepaid the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a 27 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 28 2. 1 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $402.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 5 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 7 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner granted leave to proceed 8 IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. 9 Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), 10 and regardless of whether her action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) 11 & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 12 Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a 13 “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for ... the 6- 14 month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); 15 Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account 16 statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits 17 in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account 18 for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner 20 then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in 21 any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court 22 until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 84. 23 24 25 1 For civil cases filed after December 1, 2020, the civil litigant bringing suit must pay the 26 $350 statutory fee in addition to a $52 administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial 27 Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP, 28 1 In support of his request to proceed IFP, Plaintiff’s prison certificate authorized by 2 ||an RJD accounting official and a copy of his CDCR Inmate Statement Report has been 3 ||submitted. See ECF No. 3; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2; Andrews, 398 4 || F.3d at 1119. These documents show that for the preceding six months, Plaintiff carried an 5 ||average monthly balance of $2790.48 and average monthly deposits of $54.39 See ECF 6 3. The balance in Plaintiffs trust account as of December 2, 2022, was $2700.77. Id. 7 1, 3. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown the indigence required to proceed IFP. 8 || Therefore, because Plaintiff is able to pay the filing fee in total, Plaintiff's Motion to 9 || Proceed IFP is DENIED. 10 Conclusion and Order 11 1) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2); 12 2) | DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the full statutory 13 || and administrative $402 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 14 3) Plaintiff granted thirty (30) days leave from the date this Order is “Filed” 15 ||in which to pay the $402 initial civil filing fee. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: December 6, 2022 > 18 a Yn: 19 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 oe
Cites, in this corpus
- Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo 13-56004 · 2015-01-07