McCoy v. Le

District Court, S.D. California·Decided November 22, 2021·No. 3:21-cv-01755·Unknown

Opinion

RICKY EUGENE McCOY, Case No.: 3:21-cv-1755-BAS-LL CDCR #BN-6712, ORDER: Plaintiff, v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS PHA C. LE, DO, Physician; KERI L. (ECF No. 2); LONDON, MD; PALOMAR MEDICAL

AND Defendants. (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PREPAY FILING FEES Plaintiff Ricky Eugene McCoy, a state inmate currently incarcerated in Calipatria State Prison located in Calipatria, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action when he filed his Complaint; instead, he filed a “Request to Waive Court Fees” on a Judicial Council of California Mandatory Form, which the Court liberally construes as his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) // I. Motion to Proceed IFP All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 83–84 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 84‒85. //

1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed While Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed IFP, he has not attached a certified copy of his CDCR Inmate Statement Report for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2. Section 1915(a)(2) clearly requires that prisoners “seeking to bring a civil action . . . without prepayment of fees . . . shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) . . . for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added). Without these certified trust account statements, the Court is unable to assess the appropriate amount of the initial filing fee which may be statutorily required to initiate the prosecution of this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). II. Conclusion and Order For this reason, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay the $402 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); (2) Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five (45) days from the date this Order in which to re-open his case by either: (a) prepaying the entire $402 civil filing and administrative fee in one lump-sum; or (b) filing a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes a prison certificate, signed by a CAL trust accounting official attesting as to his trust

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

McCoy v. Le, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

McCoy v. Le (McCoy v. Le) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Basher
629 F.3d 1161 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Andrews v. Cervantes
493 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo
775 F.3d 1182 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)