Mitchell v. Ryer

District Court, S.D. California · 3:23-cv-00661 · 2023-05-09 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Todd W. Robinson (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:01Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a civil rights complaint filed by a pro se prisoner who had neither paid the required filing fee nor submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and granted the plaintiff 45 days to pay the fee or file a proper IFP motion.

What the court decided	The model
Dismissal of civil action without prejudice for failure to pay filing fee or move for IFP status “DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $402 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a)”	agree with court The dismissal is procedurally correct. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a civil action cannot proceed without the payment of the filing fee or the granting of IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The order recites that the plaintiff failed to do either. Dismissing without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the defect, which is the standard procedure in the Ninth Circuit for this specific deficiency.
Granting of 45 days to pay fee or file IFP motion “GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to: (a) prepay the $402 fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP”	agree with court Providing a period to cure the fee deficiency is consistent with local rules and the purpose of the IFP statute to ensure access to the courts for indigent litigants. The requirement for a certified trust account statement is mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) for prisoners.

What the court decided

The model

Dismissal of civil action without prejudice for failure to pay filing fee or move for IFP status

“DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $402 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a)”

agree with court
The dismissal is procedurally correct. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a civil action cannot proceed without the payment of the filing fee or the granting of IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The order recites that the plaintiff failed to do either. Dismissing without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the defect, which is the standard procedure in the Ninth Circuit for this specific deficiency.

Granting of 45 days to pay fee or file IFP motion

“GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to: (a) prepay the $402 fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP”

agree with court
Providing a period to cure the fee deficiency is consistent with local rules and the purpose of the IFP statute to ensure access to the courts for indigent litigants. The requirement for a certified trust account statement is mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) for prisoners.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory requirements for commencing a civil action. It accurately cites Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the obligations of prisoner plaintiffs to pay fees or file IFP motions. The dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate procedural remedy when the fee requirement is not met at the outset. The warning regarding future screening under § 1915A is also legally accurate.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN E. MITCHELL, Case No.: 23-cv-661 TWR (MSB) CDCR #H38255, 11 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 12 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 13 FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C.

14 § 1914(a) AND/OR FAILURE TO M. RYER, Corrections Sergeant, et al., MOVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 15 Defendants. PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915(a)

18 19 Plaintiff John E. Mitchell (“Plaintiff” or “Mitchell”), proceeding pro se and currently 20 housed at California State Prison, Sacramento located in Represa, California, has filed this 21 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 1, “Compl.”) 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 23 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 24 $402.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of 27 $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave 28 1 prepay the entire fee, however, 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). If a plaintiff is a prisoner, and even if he is 4 granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he remains obligated to pay the entire filing fee in 5 “increments,” regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. Williams v. Paramo, 6 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 7 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $402 in filing and administrative fees required to 9 commence this civil action, nor has he submitted a properly supported Motion to Proceed 10 IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 12 Accordingly, the Court: 13 (1) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice based on 14 Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $402 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion 15 to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a); and 16 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to: (a) 17 prepay the $402 fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP that includes 18 a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing 19 of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 20 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with this Court’s 21 approved AO 239 form “Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees 22 or Costs.” 23 Plaintiff is cautioned that his Complaint will be screened before service and may be 24 dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 25 regardless of whether he pays the full $402 filing fee at once or is granted IFP status and 26 is obligated to pay the full filing fee in installments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 27 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but 28 requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails 1 || to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. 2 || Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 3 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seek[ing] redress from a 4 || governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity’’). 5 Lf Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $402 civil filing fee or complete and submit the 6 ||enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within forty-five (45) days, this action will remain 7 ||dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. $ 1914(a)’s fee 8 || requirements. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: May 9, 2023 —_—~ | (2 □□□ 12 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Cites, in this corpus

Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo 13-56004 · 2015-01-07