McNeil v. Montgomery

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJune 1, 2021
Docket3:21-cv-00860
StatusUnknown

This text of McNeil v. Montgomery (McNeil v. Montgomery) 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
McNeil v. Montgomery, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONTE BAY McNEIL, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00860-JAH-AHG CDCR #AY5635, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 14 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, 15 [ECF No. 3]; AND ROBERT MARTINEZ, FRANCISCO 16 PARTIDA, KATHLEEN ALLISON, (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 17 Defendants. WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO PAY 18 FILING FEE REQUIRED 19 BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED 20 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 21 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 22 23 Donte Bay McNeil (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently incarcerated at Calipatria 24 State Prison (“CSP”) located in Calipatria, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a 25 civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did 26 not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action when he 27 filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 28 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 3. 2 I. Failure to Provide Trust Account Statement 3 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 4 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 5 $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 6 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 8 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s 9 (“PLRA”) amendments to § 1915 require that all prisoners who proceed IFP to pay the 10 entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 83–84 (2016); 11 Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether their 12 action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 13 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 15 of fees to file an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and demonstrates 16 an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In 17 support of this affidavit, the PLRA also requires prisoners to submit a “certified copy of 18 the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period 19 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. 20 King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the 21 Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account 22 for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six 23 months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then collects 25 subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any month in 26 which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until the entire 27 filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629. 28 l Although Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, he did not include a certified 2 account statement. See ECF No. 3. Because Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee 3 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action, nor filed a properly supported 4 || Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his case cannot yet proceed. See 5 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 6 Conclusion and Order 7 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Court: 8 1. DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3) pursuant to 28 9 ||U.S.C. § 1914(a) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); 10 2. DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure 11 |/to pay the $402 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFI 12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and 13 3. GRANTS Plaintiff sixty (60) days leave from the date this Order is filed to 14 prepay the entire $402 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete anc 15 a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his CDCR trus 16 |;account statements for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. Se. 17 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 18 4. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with the 19 |iCourt's approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed 20 |!In Forma Pauperis.” If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $402 civil filing fee or fully 21 ||complete and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 60 days, this 22 |laction will remain dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to satisfy 28 23 ||U.S.C. § 1914(a)’s fee requirement and without further Order of the Court. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 || Dated: June 1, 2021 VU 27 on. John A. Houston 28 / United States District Judge

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

Related

United States v. Michelletti
13 F.3d 838 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McNeil v. Montgomery, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneil-v-montgomery-casd-2021.