Brown v. Gore

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedMarch 23, 2022
Docket3:22-cv-00348
StatusUnknown

This text of Brown v. Gore (Brown v. Gore) 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
Brown v. Gore, (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS WAYNE BROWN, Case No.: 22-cv-348-MMA (WVG) Booking No. 21148122, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR WILLIAM D. GORE. San Diego County 15 FAILURE TO PREPAY FILING FEES Sheriff,

16 Defendant. [Doc. No. 2] 17 18 19 Plaintiff Douglas Wayne Brown, currently housed at the South Bay Detention 20 Facility located in Chula Vista, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 21 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff did not pay 22 the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action; instead, he 23 filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 24 Doc. No. 2. 25 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 26 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 27 28 1 $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez 4 v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner granted leave to 5 proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” 6 Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 83–84 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 7 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a 10 “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 11 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified 13 trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 14 monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly 15 balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner 16 has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution 17 having custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the 18 preceding month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards 19 those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 84‒85. 21 While Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed IFP, he has not attached a certified copy of 22 his Inmate Statement Report for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of 23 his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. Section 1915(a)(2) 24 clearly requires that prisoners “seeking to bring a civil action . . . without prepayment of 25

26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $52. 27 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14) (eff. Dec. 1, 2020). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave 28 1 || fees ... shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional 2 ||equivalent) ... for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the 3 complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added). Without these certified trust 4 account statements, the Court is unable to assess the appropriate amount of the initial 5 || filing fee which may be statutorily required to initiate the prosecution of this case. See 28 6 |/U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 7 CONCLUSION 8 For this reason, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP and 9 || DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to prepay the $402 civil filing fee 10 required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days 11 || from the date this Order in which to re-open his case by either: (a) prepaying the entire 12 civil filing and administrative fee in one lump-sum; or (b) filing a renewed Motion 13 ||to Proceed IFP, which includes a prison certificate, signed by a trust accounting 14 || official attesting as to his trust account balances and deposits and/or a certified copy 15 || of his Inmate Statement Report for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his 16 ||Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 17 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court- 18 || approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma 19 || Pauperis” for his use and convenience. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: March 23, 2022 22 BWMiiduh UM -/ hipltr 23 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

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

Related

Andrews v. Cervantes
493 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo
775 F.3d 1182 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brown v. Gore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-gore-casd-2022.