Cunningham v. Ramos

District Court, S.D. California·Decided April 25, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-00351·Unknown

Opinion

MELVIN LYNN CUNNINGHAM, Jr, Case No.: 3:23-cv-00351-JAH-NLS CDCR No. F-78919, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. FOR FAILING TO PAY FILING FEE REQUIRED

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR ALFONSO RAMOS; JESSICA MORA, FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED Defendants. IN FORMA PAUPERIS 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 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 prepay the entire fee, however, if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). If the Plaintiff is a prisoner, and even if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he remains obligated to pay the entire filing fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has not prepaid the $402 in filing and administrative fees required to commence this civil action, and although he has submitted a Prisoner Trust Account Statement, he has not submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. II. Conclusion and Order Accordingly, the Court: (1) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $402 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a); and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: (a) prepay the entire $402 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2(b). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with this Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” But if Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $402 civil filing fee or complete and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will be dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)’s fee requirements.” Dated: April 25, 2023 n. John A. Houston nited States District Judge * Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further by either prepaying the full 99 $402 civil filing fee, or submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his 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 full $402 filing fee at once, or is granted IFP status and is obligated to pay the full filing fee in installments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte 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 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”).

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

Cunningham v. Ramos, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Cunningham v. Ramos (Cunningham v. Ramos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Andrews v. Cervantes
493 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo
775 F.3d 1182 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)