Jones v. U.S. District Court
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — On March 26, 2024, the Court denied the motion to proceed IFP for failure
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a second motion by a state prisoner to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a habeas corpus case that had previously been dismissed without prejudice. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the petitioner failed to provide the required prison trust account statement and certificate, and instead explicitly refused to authorize the prison to release that information.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 5) denied without prejudice to resubmission.“Thus, because Petitioner has not provided the Court with the required financial information again, the Court DENIES the instant Motion to Proceed IFP in forma pauperis without prejudice to resubmission.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the procedural requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and local rules. The petitioner's explicit refusal to authorize the release of his trust account statement constitutes a failure to provide the mandatory financial information required to establish indigency. Denying the motion without prejudice is appropriate as it allows the petitioner to cure the defect by providing the required documents. |
Case remains dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the March 4, 2024 Order.“This case remains dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the Court’s March 4, 2024 Order.” | agree with court The court is maintaining the status quo of the prior dismissal order. Since the petitioner has not yet filed the required First Amended Petition or paid the fee, the case cannot be reopened. This is a procedural consequence of the failure to meet the conditions set in the previous order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the specific deficiencies in the petitioner's IFP motion (missing trust account statement and certificate) and notes the petitioner's active refusal to authorize the release of that information. The court correctly applies the relevant federal statutes and local rules. The footnote correctly distinguishes between habeas claims (fact/duration) and § 1983 claims (conditions), citing appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority to guide the petitioner on the proper vehicle for his remaining grievances.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WAYNE ELIJAH JONES, Case No.: 24cv296-LL-SBC 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 [ECF No. 5] U.S. DISTRICT COURT, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 On February 9, 2024, Petitioner Wayne Elijah Jones (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 2254. ECF No. 1. On March 4, 2024, the Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice 20 for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to name a proper Respondent, and 21 failure to state a cognizable claim on habeas corpus. ECF No. 2 at 3. In addition, the Court 22 directed Petitioner that if he wished to proceed with a habeas action challenging the fact or 23 duration of his confinement, he must submit both (1) a completed First Amended Petition 24 form that cured the pleading deficiencies identified by the Court and (2) either the $5.00 25 filing fee or adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee on or before May 3, 2024. See id. 26 On March 11, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF 27 No. 3. On March 26, 2024, the Court denied the motion to proceed IFP for failure to provide 28 the Court with the required financial information and reminded Petitioner he must both 1 satisfy the filing fee requirement and file a First Amended Petition form to reopen and 2 proceed with the instant case which cures the pleadings deficiencies previously outlined on 3 or before May 3, 2024. ECF Nos. 3, 4. On April 5, 2024, Petitioner filed a second motion 4 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5, Motion to Proceed IFP (“Motion” or “Mot.”). 5 Petitioner has not yet filed a First Amended Petition. 6 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 7 A motion to proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must not only 8 include an affidavit with a statement of all assets showing an inability to pay the $5.00 9 filing fee but must also include “a certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer 10 of the place of confinement showing the amount of money or securities that the petitioner 11 has in any account in the institution.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 3(a)(2), 28 12 U.S.C. § foll. 2254; see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. The motion must also “contain a certified 13 copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for 14 the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the suit or notice of appeal, 15 obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was 16 confined.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 17 While Petitioner has again submitted the required affidavit, he has failed to provide 18 the Court with the required prison certificate and certified copy of his trust fund account 19 statement. See Mot. at 1–3. Instead, on the Trust Account Withdrawal Authorization form 20 included with the instant motion, Petitioner specifically indicates that he “does not 21 approve” the agency holding him in custody to prepare the required certified copy of his 22 trust account statement. Id. at 4. Thus, because Petitioner has not provided the Court with 23 the required financial information again, the Court DENIES the instant Motion to Proceed 24 IFP in forma pauperis without prejudice to resubmission. 25 II. CONCLUSION 26 For the reasons discussed, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed IFP 27 [ECF No. 5] without prejudice to resubmission. This case remains dismissed without 28 prejudice pursuant to the Court’s March 4, 2024 Order. 1 Again, Petitioner is reminded that if he wishes to reopen this case and proceed with 2 ||a habeas action challenging the fact or duration of his confinement, he must submit, no 3 || later than May 3, 2024, BOTH: (1) a completed First Amended Petition form that cures A |\the pleading deficiencies outlined in the instant Order and (2) either the $5.00 fee or 5 adequate proof of Petitioner’s inability to pay the fee, the latter of which must include the 6 || required financial information outlined above. 7 Petitioner is also again reminded that if he wishes to instead challenge the conditions 8 his confinement, he must file a new civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 9 || which will be given a new case number.! The Clerk of Court is again directed to send 10 || Petitioner a blank In Forma Pauperis Application together with a copy of this Order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: April 12, 2024 NO 13 Ct | 14 Honorable Linda Lopez 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ||! For instance, Petitioner’s cursory reference in the instant motion to “still being attack [sic] 54 by employees of CDCR” at the state prison where he is currently confined, 1s not cognizable on habeas review for the reasons previously discussed in the Court’s March 4, 25 2024 Order. See ECF No. 5 at 6; ECF No. 2 at 3. It is unclear how these contentions 5 challenge the constitutional validity or duration of his confinement. See 28 U.S.C. 6 § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 27 |\|477, 480-85 (1994); see also Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en 28 banc). Therefore, to the extent Petitioner wishes to pursue those claims, he must do so, if at all, in a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.