Strojnik v. Carte Hotel Ventures, LP
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's failure to pay the required civil filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with his complaints. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the $402 fee or file an IFP application within 30 days, warning that failure to do so will result in dismissal without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring plaintiff to pay filing fee or file IFP application“Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to either pay the full $402 filing fee or file an application to proceed IFP within thirty (30) days of the of this Order.” | agree with court The decision follows directly from 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a), which require payment of fees or a showing of financial hardship for IFP status. The court correctly identified that the plaintiff had done neither. The 30-day deadline and warning of dismissal without prejudice are standard procedural mechanisms to enforce this requirement. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory requirements for filing fees and IFP status, cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the standard for IFP affidavits, and issues a standard order to cure the deficiency with a clear deadline and consequence. There are no gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER STROJNIK, Case No.: 22-CV-1088 TWR (AGS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING FILING FEE 13 v. OR APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, through Rob Bonta in his official capacity as the 15 Attorney General of the State of 16 California; and CARTÉ HOTEL VENTURES, LP, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff Peter Strojnik, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in July 2022 and a First 21 Amended Complaint in September 2022. (See generally ECF Nos. 1, 4.) Neither 22 Complaint was accompanied by a filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis 23 (“IFP”). All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 24 United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay filing and 25 administration fees totaling $402.1 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A court may, however, in its 26 27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of 28 1 || discretion, allow a plaintiff to commence a proceeding without paying these fees if the 2 || plaintiff seeks leave to proceed IFP by submitting an affidavit demonstrating the fees 3 |}impose financial hardship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 4 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Although the statute does not specify the qualifications for 5 proceeding IFP, the plaintiffs affidavit must allege poverty with some particularity. 6 || Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Granting a plaintiff leave to proceed IFP may be proper, for 7 ||example, when the affidavit demonstrates that paying court costs will result in a □□□□□□□□□□□ 8 ||inability to afford the “necessities of life.’ Jd. The affidavit, however, need not 9 demonstrate that the plaintiff is destitute. Jd. Here, Plaintiff has not paid the required filing 10 || fee nor filed an application to proceed IFP. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to either pay 11 the full $402 filing fee or file an application to proceed IFP within thirty (30) days of the 12 of this Order. If Plaintiff does not timely pay the filing fee or file an application to 13 || proceed IFP, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: January 9, 2023 —_—— I [59 bee 17 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ng Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.