Kaiser v. Doe
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's § 1983 complaint that was filed without the required $405 filing fee or 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 compliant IFP motion to reopen the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or request in forma pauperis status“DISMISSES this action without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and his failure to properly move to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally correct because 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) mandates the payment of a filing fee for civil actions, and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides the exclusive mechanism for a plaintiff to proceed without prepayment. The order recites that the plaintiff failed to do either, making the dismissal the required outcome under the cited statutes. |
Grant of 45 days leave to reopen the case by paying the fee or filing a compliant IFP motion“GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order to re-open his case by: (a) prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) in full; or (b) completing and filing a Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP that complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b)” | agree with court Granting a period to cure a procedural defect before final dismissal is a common and equitable practice in federal courts, particularly for pro se litigants, to ensure that the case is not dismissed on technical grounds if the plaintiff can readily comply with the statutory requirements. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory requirements for filing a civil action and the alternative for proceeding without prepayment. It applies the cited authorities accurately to the facts recited (failure to pay or file IFP motion). The reasoning is direct and answers the procedural deficiency with the appropriate legal standards.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL KAISER, Case No.: 3:24-cv-0410-JAH-SBC Booking # 23740515, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 14 FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C.
15 § 1914(a) JOHN DOE, Physician, JOHN DOE, 16 Mental Health Provider, JANE DOE, 17 Nurse, RUBY GONZALEZ, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Michael Kaiser (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at George Bailey Detention 21 Facility in San Diego County, California, is proceeding pro se in this case pursuant to 42 22 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 1. 23 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request In Forma Pauperis Status 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 26 $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 27 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 1 ||2007). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay 2 || the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016), 3 ||regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)-(2); 4 || Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 5 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $405 in filing and administrative fees required to 6 commence this civil action, nor has he submitted a properly supported Motion to Proceed 7 || IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 8 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 9 ||. Conclusion and Order 10 Accordingly, the Court: 11 (1) DISMISSES this action without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to pay 12 || the $405 civil filing and administrative fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and his failure 13 || to properly move to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); 14 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order to 15 |/re-open his case by: (a) prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee 16 |/required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) in full; or (b) completing and filing a Motion and 17 ||Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP that complies with 28 U.S.C. 18 || § 1915(a)(1)-(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b); and 19 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved 20 “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for his use and 21 |/convenience. Should Plaintiff neither pay the $405 filing fee in full nor sufficiently 22 ||complete and file the attached Motion and Declaration to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this 23 || civil action will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and 24 || without further Order of the Court. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: March 11, 2024 VU Lik 27 JOHN A. HOUSTON 28 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 oe