1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAKAN MILLS, Case No.: 25-cv-02158-AJB-DEB CDCR #P-11240, 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
15 FAILURE TO PROPERLY MOVE PATRICIO, Correctional Officer; TO PROCEED IN FORMA 16 VALENCIA, Correctional Officer; PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO 17 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) CORRECTIONS AND 18 REHABILITATION, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 INTRODUCTION 23 Plaintiff Jakan Mills (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 24 Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a 25 civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges 26 correctional officers at RJD violated his constitutional rights by making racist comments 27 and discriminating against him. (See id.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court 28 dismisses the case without prejudice. 1 FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS 2 Generally, parties initiating a civil action in a district court of the United States, must 3 pay a filing fee of $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a 4 plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma 5 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 6 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Cervantes”). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to 7 proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” 8 Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016), regardless of whether his action is ultimately 9 dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th 10 Cir. 2002). 11 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 12 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 13 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 14 2015) (emphasis added). In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must also 15 submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) 16 for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). It is from the certified 18 trust account statement that the Court assesses an initial payment. See 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then 20 collects subsequent payments and forwards them to the Court, as outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(b)(2), until the entire filing fee is paid. See Bruce, 577 U.S. at 85‒86. 22 Here, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action when 23 he filed his Complaint. Nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes both the 24 affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the certified copy of his trust account 25 statements required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). While RJD has submitted a copy of 26 Plaintiff’s prison certificate and a printout of his trust account activity on Plaintiff’s behalf, 27 (see Doc. No. 2), this accounting, unless accompanied by a motion and affidavit submitted 28 by Plaintiff, is insufficient. “The in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to allow ‘[1] 1 the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or 2 criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a 3 person who [2] makes affidavit that he is [3] unable to pay such costs or give security 4 therefor.’” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 5 194, 214 (1993) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). “When a claim of poverty is made under 6 section 1915 it is proper and indeed essential for the supporting affidavits to state the facts 7 as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. 8 McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). And here, Plaintiff has failed to provide the 9 required affidavit. 10 Therefore, unless Plaintiff either pays the filing fee “upfront,” Bruce, 577 U.S. at 86, 11 or files a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP that includes an affidavit that meets 12 the requirements set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1914(a); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Accordingly, the Court: 16 (1) DISMISSES this action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay 17 the $405 civil filing and administrative fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and his failure 18 to properly move to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 19 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order 20 to re-open his case by either: (a) prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative 21 fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); or (b) completing and filing a Motion and Declaration 22 in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP that complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2) and 23 S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2.b. 24 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved 25 form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for his use and 26 convenience. Should Plaintiff fail to pay the $405 filing fee in full or sufficiently complete 27 and file the attached Motion and Declaration to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action 28 will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAKAN MILLS, Case No.: 25-cv-02158-AJB-DEB CDCR #P-11240, 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
15 FAILURE TO PROPERLY MOVE PATRICIO, Correctional Officer; TO PROCEED IN FORMA 16 VALENCIA, Correctional Officer; PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO 17 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) CORRECTIONS AND 18 REHABILITATION, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 INTRODUCTION 23 Plaintiff Jakan Mills (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 24 Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a 25 civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges 26 correctional officers at RJD violated his constitutional rights by making racist comments 27 and discriminating against him. (See id.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court 28 dismisses the case without prejudice. 1 FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS 2 Generally, parties initiating a civil action in a district court of the United States, must 3 pay a filing fee of $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a 4 plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma 5 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 6 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Cervantes”). However, a prisoner who is granted leave to 7 proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” 8 Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016), regardless of whether his action is ultimately 9 dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th 10 Cir. 2002). 11 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 12 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 13 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 14 2015) (emphasis added). In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must also 15 submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) 16 for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). It is from the certified 18 trust account statement that the Court assesses an initial payment. See 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then 20 collects subsequent payments and forwards them to the Court, as outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(b)(2), until the entire filing fee is paid. See Bruce, 577 U.S. at 85‒86. 22 Here, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action when 23 he filed his Complaint. Nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes both the 24 affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the certified copy of his trust account 25 statements required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). While RJD has submitted a copy of 26 Plaintiff’s prison certificate and a printout of his trust account activity on Plaintiff’s behalf, 27 (see Doc. No. 2), this accounting, unless accompanied by a motion and affidavit submitted 28 by Plaintiff, is insufficient. “The in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to allow ‘[1] 1 the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or 2 criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a 3 person who [2] makes affidavit that he is [3] unable to pay such costs or give security 4 therefor.’” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 5 194, 214 (1993) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). “When a claim of poverty is made under 6 section 1915 it is proper and indeed essential for the supporting affidavits to state the facts 7 as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. 8 McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). And here, Plaintiff has failed to provide the 9 required affidavit. 10 Therefore, unless Plaintiff either pays the filing fee “upfront,” Bruce, 577 U.S. at 86, 11 or files a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP that includes an affidavit that meets 12 the requirements set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1914(a); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Accordingly, the Court: 16 (1) DISMISSES this action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay 17 the $405 civil filing and administrative fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and his failure 18 to properly move to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 19 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order 20 to re-open his case by either: (a) prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative 21 fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); or (b) completing and filing a Motion and Declaration 22 in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP that complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2) and 23 S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2.b. 24 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved 25 form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for his use and 26 convenience. Should Plaintiff fail to pay the $405 filing fee in full or sufficiently complete 27 and file the attached Motion and Declaration to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action 28 will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without 1 || further Order of the Court.! 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: September 16, 2025 © 4 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff is cautioned that, if he chooses to re-open the case by either prepaying the 99 full $405 civil filing fee, or by submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will be subject to an initial review and may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays the full filing fee at once, or is granted IFP status and is obligated to pay the full filing fee in installments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks 26 damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 27 || 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all 28 complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”’).