Jones v. San Diego Police Dept.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedApril 3, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-00654
StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. San Diego Police Dept. (Jones v. San Diego Police Dept.) 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
Jones v. San Diego Police Dept., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRELL M. JONES, Case No.: 25cv0654-DMS (KSC) BOOKING #4736966, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS vs. AND DISMISSING ACTION 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

15 SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 Terrell M. Jones (“Plaintiff”), a person confined at the George Bailey Detention 21 Facility in Santee, California, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights Complaint pursuant 22 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 23 (“IFP”). (Doc. No. 2.) 24 I. Motion to proceed IFP 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 $405, consisting of a $350 statutory fee plus an additional administrative fee of $55, 28 although the administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee 2 Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 3 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). Section 5 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a “certified copy of 6 the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period 7 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. 8 King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the 9 Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account 10 for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six 11 months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has insufficient assets. See 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1915(b)(1)&(4); Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016). Prisoners who proceed IFP 13 must pay any remaining balance in “increments” or “installments,” regardless of whether 14 their action is ultimately dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)&(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 84. 15 In support of his IFP motion, Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his account activity 16 statement from the San Diego Sheriff’s Department for the 6-month period immediately 17 preceding the filing of his Complaint. ECF No. 2 at 6-7. However, the account statement 18 is not attested to by a trust account official. See id. The Court cannot grant his IFP 19 application without a certified trust fund account statement containing financial 20 information for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a “certified copy 22 of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period 23 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.”); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 24 1119 (9th Cir. 2005) (“prisoners must demonstrate that they are not able to pay the filing 25 fee with an affidavit and submission of their prison trust account records.”), citing 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)&(2). 27 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED 28 without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the civil filing and administrative fee 1 || or to submit a properly supported motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. □□ □□□□ 2 || & 1915(a). 3 Conclusion and Order 4 Accordingly, the Court: 5 (1) DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] without prejudice. 6 (2) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to 7 the civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a properly supported motion to 8 || proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(a). 9 (3) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed 10 || to: (a) prepay the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and 11 || file a properly supported motion to proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his 12 || prison trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. 13 || See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). If Plaintiff fails to either pay the $405 14 || civil filing fee or submit a properly supported motion to proceed IFP within 45 days, this 15 action will remain dismissed without prejudice based solely on his failure to satisfy 28 16 || U.S.C. § 1914(a)’s fee requirement and without further Order of the Court. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: April 3, 2025 19 ns Yn. L4\ 50 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 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

Andrews v. Cervantes
493 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Bruce v. Samuels
577 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jones v. San Diego Police Dept., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-san-diego-police-dept-casd-2025.