Sinclair v. Martinez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss his civil rights action and stop the garnishment of his inmate trust account for the filing fee. The court granted the motion to dismiss the action but denied the request to stop the fee garnishment, ordering the case closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Dismiss Granted“The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).” | agree with court The plaintiff filed a request to dismiss before defendants were served or answered. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court correctly identified that the plaintiff had an absolute right to dismiss under these circumstances and cited the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority confirming this right. |
Request to Stop Fee Garnishment Denied“However, the Court cannot stop the garnishment of Plaintiff’s trust account as he requests. Regardless of whether the action is dismissed, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the filing fee.” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the entire filing fee in installments from their trust account. The obligation to pay the fee arises upon the grant of IFP status and is not extinguished by the voluntary dismissal of the underlying action. The court correctly applied the statute and binding precedent (Taylor v. Delatoore) to deny the request to stop garnishment. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) to grant the voluntary dismissal, citing appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the plaintiff's absolute right to dismiss before service. It also correctly applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) and binding Ninth Circuit precedent to deny the request to stop fee garnishment, accurately stating that the fee obligation survives dismissal. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD JOHN SINCLAIR, Case No.: 23-cv-648-MMA (MSB) Booking #22728816, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 DISMISS vs. 14 [Doc. No. 5] SAN DIEGO SHERIFF MARTINEZ; 15 CAPTAIN BIBEL, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 I.PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 On April 7, 2023, Ronald John Sinclair (“Plaintiff”), while detained at the San Diego 21 Central Jail (“SDCJ”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 22 Complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff did not 23 pay the fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, he filed 24 a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 25 Doc. No. 2. 26 On April 18, 2023, the Court conducted the required sua sponte screening and 27 dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 28 granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 3. Plaintiff 1 was also granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and he was informed that he would 2 be required to pay the entire $350 filing fee by garnishing his inmate trust account 3 pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 4 Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended pleading but instead he has filed a 5 request to dismiss this matter and has further requested that no further funds be garnished 6 from his account. 7 II. MOTION TO DISMISS 8 Plaintiff has submitted a request to the Court stating, “please dismiss my complaint 9 in this matter” and “please do not have them take money from my trust account [and] 10 cancel my motion [to] proceed in forma pauperis.” Doc. No. 5. 11 Plaintiff has “an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to” 12 defendants being served, filing an answer or seeking summary judgment, and “[t]he filing 13 of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to 14 the defendants who are the subjects of the notice. Such a dismissal leaves the parties as 15 though no action had been brought.” American Soccer Co., Inc. v. Score First 16 Enterprises, 187 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 17 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to 18 Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). 19 However, the Court cannot stop the garnishment of Plaintiff’s trust account as he 20 requests. Regardless of whether the action is dismissed, Plaintiff remains obligated to 21 pay the filing fee. A prisoner granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the 22 entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); 23 Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether their 24 action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 25 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 For the reasons explained, t Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5), liberally 28 construed as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), is 1 ||}GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss this action and close the file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: May 12, 2023 4 Miku MM Lille 5 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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