Martinez v. Gonzales
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's letter requesting an extension of time to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) after a prior dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee. The court granted the request, providing the plaintiff an additional 30 days to either pay the fee or file a proper IFP motion with a certified trust account statement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee.“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file an IFP motion or pay the filing fee.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the liberal construction standard for pro se filings to interpret the plaintiff's ambiguous letter as a request for an extension. Granting a short extension to allow a pro se litigant to comply with procedural requirements (filing fee or IFP motion) is a standard exercise of discretion to ensure access to the courts, and the order specifies the necessary steps (certified trust account statement) required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the plaintiff's status as pro se, applies the appropriate liberal construction standard to interpret the ambiguous letter, and grants a reasonable extension while clearly stating the consequences of non-compliance (dismissal without prejudice). It cites the correct statutory requirements for IFP motions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUSTIN MARTINEZ, Case No.: 24-CV-409 JLS (DTF) Booking #2374931 12 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION Plaintiff, 13 OF TIME TO FILE MOTION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, A. 15 HAMMETT, J. MENDEZ, R. BATTAD, 16 F. GRISEZ, R. ESQUILAN, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff Justin Martinez, a prisoner detained at Vista 21 Detention Facility and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1983. See ECF No. 1. On March 4, 2024, this Court dismissed the action because 23 Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF 24 No. 3. The Court gave Plaintiff forty-five (45) days to either pay the fee or file a motion 25 to proceed IFP. See id. 26 On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter in which he states he “filed a fee waiver” 27 but has not received a response. ECF No. 5 at 1. While it is unclear whether Plaintiff is 1 ||referencing an unsuccessful attempt to file an IFP motion in this Court or an attempt to 2 || obtain a copy of his prison trust account statement from jail officials, the Court liberally 3 ||construes the letter as a request for an extension of time to submit and IFP motion. See 4 || Erickson vy. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally 5 ||construed ....’” (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1979))). 6 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for an additional 7 thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file an IFP motion or pay the filing fee. See 8 || Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). 9 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 10 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date 11 this Order, to either: (a) prepay the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee in full; 12 (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his 13 || trust account statement for the six-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 14 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff 16 || with this Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed 17 ||In Forma Pauperis.” If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $405 civil filing fee or complete 18 || and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP by the deadline set above, this action will 19 |/remain dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. 20 ||§ 1914(a)’s fee requirements and without further Order of the Court. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: May 23, 2024 jae L. Lo memeaite- 3 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 24 25 26 27