Toussaint v. Jimenez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a civil complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff who had not paid the required filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the fee or move for IFP status within 30 days, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering plaintiff to pay filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis“Consequently, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or move to proceed IFP within 30 days of the issuance of this Order.” | agree with court The order correctly applies 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court identifies that the plaintiff has neither paid the fee nor applied for IFP status. Providing a deadline to cure this deficiency before dismissal is a standard and legally sound procedural step in federal district courts. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate statutes and Ninth Circuit case law regarding filing fees and IFP requirements. It clearly states the deficiency and provides a specific deadline to cure it. 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 FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT, Case No.: 23-CV-506 JLS (KSC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO 13 v. PAY FILING FEE OR MOVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 JIMENEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 1) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Fritz Gerald Toussaint’s Complaint 18 (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1). 19 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 20 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 21 $402.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 22 prepay the entire fee only if she is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 24 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Although the statute does 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $52. 27 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 28 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to 1 ||not specify the qualifications for proceeding IFP, the plaintiff's affidavit must allege 2 poverty with some particularity. Escobeda v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 3 |}2015). Granting a plaintiff leave to proceed IFP may be proper, for example, when the 4 || affidavit demonstrates that paying court costs will result in a plaintiff's inability to afford 5 || the “necessities of life.” Jd. The affidavit, however, need not demonstrate that the plaintiff 6 destitute. Id. 7 Here, Plaintiff has yet to pay the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), nor has 8 || Plaintiff applied to proceed IFP. 9 Consequently, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or move 10 || to proceed IFP within 30 days of the issuance of this Order. The materials needed to 11 proceed IFP can be found at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/forms.aspx?list=all under the 12 heading “Pro Se Complaint.” Failure to either pay the filing fee or to move for IFP 13 status within the 30-day deadline will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 |! Dated: June 5, 2023 tt 16 jen Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28