Canales v. Guzman

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJune 13, 2023
Docket3:23-cv-01059
StatusUnknown

This text of Canales v. Guzman (Canales v. Guzman) 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
Canales v. Guzman, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 3:23-cv-1059-GPC-MSB ANGEL CHRISTOPHER CANALES, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. FOR FAILING TO PAY 14 FILING FEE REQUIRED GUZMAN, Warden, GOVERNMENT 15 BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR CLAIMS OFFICIAL, MAIL ROOM FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED 16 SERGEANT, IN FORMA PAUPERIS PURSUANT 17 Defendants. TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

18 19 20 Angel Christopher Canales (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Centinela State 21 Prison located in Imperial, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action 22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff, however, has not prepaid the $402 civil 23 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), however, and has not filed a Motion to Proceed 24 In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 25 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status 26 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 27 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 1 $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An 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 v. 4 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the Plaintiff is a prisoner, and even 5 if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he remains obligated to pay the entire filing 6 fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), 7 regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); 8 Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $402 in filing and administrative fees required to 10 commence this civil action, nor has he submitted a properly supported Motion to Proceed 11 IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 13 II. Conclusion and Order 14 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 15 (1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the 16 $402 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and 18 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed 19 to: (a) prepay the entire $402 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and 20 file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement 21 for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); 22 S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $402 civil filing fee or 23 complete and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will 24 25 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 26 fee of $52. 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 27 not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 1 |/remain dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. 2 ||§ 1914(a)’s fee requirements and without further Order of the Court. 3 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with this Court’s 4 ||approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma 5 || Pauperis.” 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: June 13, 2023 (2. sale (0 8 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curtel 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Canales v. Guzman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canales-v-guzman-casd-2023.