Jasso v. Flores

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedApril 10, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-00615
StatusUnknown

This text of Jasso v. Flores (Jasso v. Flores) 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
Jasso v. Flores, (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RALPH JASSO, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00615-JAH-MMP CDCR #H-86397, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY vs. FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 14 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR FOR FLORES, Sergeant; UNKNOWN 1, 15 FAILURE TO PROPERLY MOVE Officer, UNKNOWN 2, Officer; TO PROCEED IN FORMA 16 UNKNOWN 3, Officer, PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO 17 Defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 18 19 Plaintiff Ralph Jasso, currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison 20 (“SVSP”) in Soledad, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges four mostly 22 unidentified City of San Ysidro police officers discriminated against and falsely arrested 23 him in a McDonald’s restaurant for making terrorist threats more than twenty years ago. 24 He further claims his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were 25 violated during the criminal pretrial, trial, and sentencing proceedings that followed. (Id. 26 at 3‒4.) Plaintiff seeks $4 million in damages, contending he was unjustly tried and 27 incarcerated because he is a potential witness to San Ysidro Police Department 28 corruption. (Id. at 4, 6.) 1 I. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS 2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 5 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 6 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th 7 Cir. 2007) (“Cervantes”); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 8 However, a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the 9 entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); 10 Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his 11 action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 12 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 14 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 15 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 16 Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must 17 also submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional 18 equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the 19 complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 20 2005). It is from the certified trust account statement that the Court assesses an initial 21 payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six 22 months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, 23 whichever is greater, unless he has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent 25 payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any month in which his 26 account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee 27 is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 85‒86. 28 / / / 1 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action when he 2 filed his Complaint, nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes both the 3 affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and certified copies of his trust funds 4 account statements for the 6-month period prior to filing as required by 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(a)(2). While Plaintiff has filed a CDCR Inmate Statement Report showing his 6 trust account activity from October through December 2023 at SVSP, two-months of 7 accounting is insufficient. (See ECF No. 2.) The Report also shows Plaintiff had 8 $1,822.93 deposited into his account in November 2023, but voluntarily withdrew $1,200 9 in mid-December. (Id. at 1.) 10 “The in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to allow ‘[1] the commencement, 11 prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal 12 therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who [2] 13 makes affidavit that he is [3] unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.’” 14 Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 214 15 (1993) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). “Section 1915(a) thus contemplates that the 16 []person[] who is entitled to the benefits of the provision will have three characteristics: 17 He will have the capacity to sue or be sued, to make an affidavit, and to be unable to pay 18 court costs.” Id. “Such affidavit shall [also] state the nature of the action, . . . and 19 affiant’s belief that [he] is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “When a claim of 20 poverty is made under section 1915 ‘it is proper and indeed essential for the supporting 21 affidavits to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and 22 certainty.’” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting 23 Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). 24 Therefore, unless Plaintiff either pays the filing fee “upfront,” Bruce, 577 U.S.

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)
Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group
787 F.3d 1226 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jasso v. Flores, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jasso-v-flores-casd-2024.