Gutierrez v. Johnson
This text of Gutierrez v. Johnson (Gutierrez v. Johnson) 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JUAN GUTIERREZ, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01836-BAS-WVG 8 CDCR #F-02075, ORDER: 9 Plaintiff, (1) DENYING MOTION TO 10 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF No. 2]; 11 R.J. JOHNSON; R. RIPPA; D. TAMAYO; A. CHAVEZ; JOHN DOES; AND 12 JANE DOES, (2) DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 13 Defendants. PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO PREPAY FILING FEES 14 15 Plaintiff Juan Gutierrez, while incarcerated at California State Prison – Los Angeles 16 County (“CSP-LAC”) located in Lancaster, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a 17 Complaint pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) 18 Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time he 19 submitted his Complaint, but instead filed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See ECF No. 2.) 21 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 23 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. 24 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the 25
26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. 27 June. 1, 2016). The additional $50 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 28 1 entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 2 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the plaintiff is a 3 prisoner at the time of filing, he may be granted leave to proceed IFP, but he nevertheless 4 remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 5 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). A 7 “prisoner” is defined as “any person” who at the time of filing is “incarcerated or detained 8 in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, 9 violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, 10 or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 847. 11 Prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP must also submit a “certified copy of the[ir] 12 trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) . . . for the 6-month period 13 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). From the 14 certified trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of: (a) the 15 average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months; or (b) the average monthly 16 balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has 17 no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (4); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850. The institution having 18 custody of the prisoner collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding 19 month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards them to the 20 Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 21 While Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), 22 he has not attached a certified copy of his CSP-LAC Inmate Trust Account activity or his 23 Inmate Trust Account Statement Report for the 6-month period immediately preceding the 24 filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. Section 25 1915(a)(2) clearly requires that prisoners “seeking to bring a civil action . . . without 26 prepayment of fees . . . shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or 27 institutional equivalent) . . . for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the 28 complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added). Instead, Plaintiff has submitted a 1 ||copy of his trust account statement for early 2019 when he was previously housed at the 2 ||Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”). (See ECF No. 2 at 3.) 3 Without his current certified trust account statement, the Court is unable to asses: 4 ||the appropriate amount of the initial filing fee which is statutorily required to initiate the 5 || prosecution of this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 6 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 7 For this reason, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and the action i: 9 || DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required by 28 10 || U.S.C. § 1914(a). 1] (2) Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order ir 12 || which to re-open his case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative 13 || filing fee in one lump-sum; or (2) filing a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes 14 ||a prison certificate and/or a certified copy of his CSP-LAC Inmate Trust Account 15 ||Statement or his Inmate Trust Account Statement Report for the 6-month period 16 || preceding the filing of his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal 17 || CivLR 3.2(b). 18 (3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a Court- 19 || approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for his □□□ 20 |}and convenience. But if Plaintiff neither pays the $400 filing fee in full nor sufficiently 21 ||completes and files a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP with a certified copy of his current 22 ||6-month trust account statements within 45 days, this case will remain dismissed without 23 || prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without any further Order of the Court. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 A ul 26 || DATED: October 2, 2020 Cypilig _| Hohe st 27 United States District Judge 28 -3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gutierrez v. Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutierrez-v-johnson-casd-2020.