Barrios v. San Diego County Sheriff's Dept

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 14, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00680
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KEVIN BARRIOS, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00680-GPC-LL BOOKING #20931063 11 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 12 vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 14 FOR FAILING TO PAY DEPT., FILING FEE REQUIRED 15 Defendant. BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR 16 FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 17 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); 18 and

19 (2) DENYING MOTION FOR 20 DISCOVERY [ECF No. 4] AS MOOT

21 22 Plaintiff Kevin Barrios, currently incarcerated at the San Diego Central Jail 23 (“SDCJ”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 24 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has not prepaid the $402 filing fee. See Compl., ECF No. 25 1. He has also filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(a), and a Motion for Discovery. See ECF Nos. 2, 4. Plaintiff claims he is being 27 denied proper medical and psychiatric care. Compl. at 2‒4. Although he has filed an IFP, 28 1 he did not include the required certified trust account statement from the institution in 2 which he is incarcerated. See ECF No. 2 3 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status 4 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 5 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 6 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 7 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 9 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s 10 (“PLRA”) amendments to § 1915 require that all prisoners who proceed IFP to pay the 11 entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 12 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of 13 whether their action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. 14 Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 15 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 16 of fees to file an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and demonstrates 17 an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In 18 support of this affidavit, the PLRA also requires prisoners to submit a “certified copy of 19 the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period 20 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. 21 King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the 22 Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account 23 for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six 24 months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then collects 26 subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any month in 27 which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until the entire 28 filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629. 1 Although Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, he did not include a certified 2 trust account statement. See ECF No. 2. Because Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee 3 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action, nor filed a properly supported 4 Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his case cannot yet proceed. See 5 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 6 II. Motion for Discovery [ECF No. 4] 7 Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Discovery. See ECF No. 4. Because the Court is 8 dismissing this action without prejudice, the Motion for Discovery is DENIED without 9 prejudice as moot. 10 III. Conclusion and Order 11 Accordingly, the Court: 12 (1) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to 13 pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); 15 (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery [ECF No. 4] as moot; 16 (3) GRANTS Plaintiff sixty (60) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: 17 (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file 18 a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his CDCR trust account 19 statements for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 21 (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with the Court’s 22 approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma 23 Pauperis.”1 If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee or fully complete and 24 25 1 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further by either prepaying the full 26 $400 civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his 27 Complaint will be screened before service and may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays the 28 1 |}submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 60 days, this action will remain 2 dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)’s fee 3 ||requirement and without further Order of the Court. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: May 14, 2021 72 7 Hon. athe Coke 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 || 24 || fee in installments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en bane) 25 ||(noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte 26 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 27 || F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”).