Kinsey v. Pasha

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedMay 16, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-01225
StatusUnknown

This text of Kinsey v. Pasha (Kinsey v. Pasha) 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
Kinsey v. Pasha, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES KINSEY, Case No.: 25-cv-01225-BEN-DDL CDCR #P-4738, 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 SUSAN PASHA, Nurse Practitioner; 15 FAILURE TO PROPERLY MOVE HALL, ADA Coordinator; CDCR; TO PROCEED IN FORMA 16 JOHN DOES 1-10, PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO 17 Defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 18 19 Plaintiff Charles Kinsey, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 20 Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 21 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff, who is vision 22 impaired, seeks to sue the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and 23 several RJD officials for failing to maintain the pavement on a path leading to the prison’s 24 education facility. As a result, Plaintiff alleges the wheels of his walker got caught in a 25 pavement crack, he fell, and was denied adequate medical attention after. (Id. at 3‒5.) 26 FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS 27 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 28 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 1 $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 4 2007) (“Cervantes”); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, 5 a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in 6 “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); Williams v. 7 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is 8 ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 9 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 11 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 12 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 13 Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must also 14 submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for 15 . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). It is from the certified 17 trust account statement that the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 18 monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance 19 in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless he has no assets. See 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the 21 prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s 22 income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to 23 the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 24 85‒86. 25 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action when he filed 26 his Complaint, nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes both the affidavit 27 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the certified copies of his trust funds account 28 statements required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). While RJD has submitted two separate 1 prison certificates and CDCR records of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account activity on his 2 behalf, see ECF Nos. 2, 3, this accounting, unless accompanied by a motion and affidavit 3 submitted by Plaintiff himself, is insufficient. “The in forma pauperis statute authorizes 4 courts to allow ‘[1] the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or 5 proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or 6 security therefor, by a person who [2] makes affidavit that he is [3] unable to pay such costs 7 or give security therefor.’” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory 8 Council, 506 U.S. 194, 214 (1993) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). “Section 1915(a) thus 9 contemplates that the []person[] who is entitled to the benefits of the provision will have 10 three characteristics: He will have the capacity to sue or be sued, to make an affidavit, and 11 to be unable to pay court costs.” Id. “Such affidavit shall [also] state the nature of the 12 action, . . . and affiant’s belief that [he] is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 13 “When a claim of poverty is made under section 1915 ‘it is proper and indeed essential for 14 the supporting affidavits to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, 15 definiteness and certainty.’” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 16 (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). 17 Therefore, unless Plaintiff either pays the filing fee “upfront,” Bruce, 577 U.S. at 86, 18 or files a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP that includes the affidavit required by 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Cervantes, 493 20 F.3d at 1051.

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

Related

Rhodes v. Robinson
621 F.3d 1002 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Tomaiolo v. Mallinoff
281 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2002)
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)
Kinsey v. Pasha, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinsey-v-pasha-casd-2025.