Dorsey v. Paramo
This text of Dorsey v. Paramo (Dorsey v. Paramo) 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.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSIE DORSEY, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00843-JAH-LL CDCR #AF-6022, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. FOR FAILING TO PAY 14 FILING FEE REQUIRED
15 BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR D. PARAMO, et al., FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED 16 Defendants. IN FORMA PAUPERIS 17 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 18
21 Plaintiff Jessie Dorsey, currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan 22 Correctional Facility (“RJD”), is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 23 U.S.C. Section 1983. (See ECF No. 1, Compl.) 24 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status 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 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 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 Section 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 4 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the Plaintiff is a 5 prisoner, and even if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he remains obligated 6 to pay the entire filing fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 7 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 8 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to 10 commence a civil action. And although Plaintiff has submitted certified trust account 11 statements for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint as 12 required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(2), see ECF No. 3, he has not submitted a properly 13 supported Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). Therefore, his 14 case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 15 II. Conclusion and Order 16 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 17 (1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the 18 $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and Section 1915(a); and 20 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is 21 filed to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) 22 complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. 23 L.R. 3.2(b). 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 27 administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019)). The additional $50 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff 2 || with this Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to 3 || Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee or 4 ||complete and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will 5 ||remain dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the fee 6 requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and without further Order of the Court. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: July 10, 2020 9 n. John A. Houston 10 /nited States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dorsey v. Paramo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorsey-v-paramo-casd-2020.