Armstrong v. Doe

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJune 9, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-01176
StatusUnknown

This text of Armstrong v. Doe (Armstrong v. Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Armstrong v. Doe, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARCHIE TYRELL ARMSTRONG, Case No.: 25-cv-01176-AJB-AHG CDCR #BZ-1105, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY vs. FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 14 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR FOR JOHN DOE, County of San Diego 15 FAILURE TO PROPERLY MOVE El Cajon Adult Probation; JOHN DOE, TO PROCEED IN FORMA 16 City of San Diego Police Department PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO Detectives/Investigator; JOHN DOE, State 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) of California Department of Corrections 18 and Rehabilitation; JOHN DOE, San Diego District Attorneys, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 Plaintiff Archie Tyrell Armstrong, currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison 23 (“CEN”) in Imperial, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 24 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint seeks to sue various 25 unidentified state and local officials and entities based on claims he was wrongfully 26 convicted in San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD97961. (Id. at 5, 12.) 27 /// 28 /// 1 FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS 2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 5 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 6 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 7 2007) (“Cervantes”); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, 8 a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in 9 “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); Williams v. 10 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is 11 ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 12 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 14 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 15 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 16 Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must also 17 submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for 18 . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). It is from the certified 20 trust account statement that the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 21 monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance 22 in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless he has no assets. See 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the 24 prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s 25 income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to 26 the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 27 85‒86. 28 /// 1 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action when he filed 2 his Complaint, nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes both the affidavit 3 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the certified copies of his trust funds account 4 statements required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). While CEN has submitted prison 5 certificates and CDCR printouts of Plaintiff’s trust account activity on his behalf, see ECF 6 No. 2, this accounting, unless accompanied by a motion and affidavit submitted by 7 Plaintiff, is insufficient. “The in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to allow ‘[1] the 8 commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, 9 or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person 10 who [2] makes affidavit that he is [3] unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.’” 11 Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 214 12 (1993) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). “Section 1915(a) thus contemplates that the 13 []person[] who is entitled to the benefits of the provision will have three characteristics: 14 He will have the capacity to sue or be sued, to make an affidavit, and to be unable to pay 15 court costs.” Id. “Such affidavit shall [also] state the nature of the action, . . . and affiant’s 16 belief that [he] is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “When a claim of poverty 17 is made under section 1915 ‘it is proper and indeed essential for the supporting affidavits 18 to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” 19 United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United 20 States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). 21 Therefore, unless Plaintiff either pays the filing fee “upfront,” Bruce, 577 U.S. at 86, 22 or files a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP that includes an affidavit that meets 23 the requirements set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1914(a); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rhodes v. Robinson
621 F.3d 1002 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Andrews v. Cervantes
493 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo
775 F.3d 1182 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group
787 F.3d 1226 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Cato v. United States
70 F.3d 1103 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Armstrong v. Doe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-doe-casd-2025.