Miller v. Auto Credit Sales

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 19, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00319
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 JEFFERSON L. MILLER and CYNTHIA L. BRAUGHTON, NO. 2:21-CV-0319-TOR 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 9 PREJUDICE v. 10 AUTO CREDIT SALES and 11 PHOENIX FINANCIAL, LLC.,

12 Defendants.

13 14 BEFORE THE COURT are the Orders to Plaintiffs to submit a properly 15 completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis or pay the full filing fee. 16 ECF Nos. 9, 13. Plaintiffs were warned that failure to comply would result in the 17 dismissal of the case. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is 18 fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, this action is dismissed without 19 prejudice. 20 1 On November 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a pro se Complaint along with an 2 insufficient application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1, 2. Plaintiffs

3 were advised of the deficiencies concerning their initial application. ECF No. 4. 4 On December 15, 2021, Plaintiffs submitted a renewed Application to Proceed In 5 Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 8. This application was also deficient, and Plaintiffs

6 were instructed to file a renewed application or pay the filing fee in full, within 30- 7 days of December 17, 2021. ECF No. 9. On January 7, 2022, this Court entered a 8 text Order reminding Plaintiffs to timely file a renewed application or pay the full 9 filing fee or the case would be dismissed. ECF No. 13. Plaintiffs have done

10 neither. 11 In the meantime, Defendants moved to strike or dismiss the Complaint for 12 lack of signature. ECF No. 12. On January 7, 2022, the Court summarily denied

13 the motion because the Complaint on file contained Plaintiffs’ signatures. ECF 14 No. 13. Today, Plaintiffs have filed a Response to the Motion to Strike or Dismiss 15 the Complaint. ECF No. 14. That Response is moot, the Court already denied the 16 motion.

17 Plaintiffs have still not complied with the in forma pauperis or filing fee 18 requirement. Parties filing actions in the United States District Court are required 19 to pay filing fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed without the

20 immediate payment of a filing fee only upon granting of in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Failure to pay the statutory filing fee will result in dismissal 2|| of these actions without prejudice. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has authority to dismiss without prejudice prisoner 4|| complaint for failure to pay partial filing fee); In re Perroton, 958 F.2d 889, 890 5|| (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of appeal of pro se litigant for failure to pay 6|| required filing fees). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 8 This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fee 9|| or filing a properly completed Application to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis pursuant 10]| to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a). 11 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment 12|| accordingly, furnish a copy to the parties, and CLOSE the file. 13 DATED January 19, 2022.

oa Hear 0. Ket 15 OAKES THOMAS O. RICE <= United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20