1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORDAN RAMOS, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01701-JES-LR Booking #6977025, 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 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 15 FAILURE TO MOVE TO Defendant. PROCEED IN FORMA 16 PAUPERIS PURSUANT 17 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 18 19 Plaintiff Jordan Ramos, currently detained at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 20 Department Men’s Central Jail, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were 22 violated during criminal proceedings held in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 23 SCD304625. Id. at 1. 24 FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS 25 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 26 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 27 $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 28 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2 2007) (“Cervantes”); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, 3 a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in 4 “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); Williams v. 5 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is 6 ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 7 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 9 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 10 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 11 2015) (emphasis added). “The in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to allow ‘[1] the 12 commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, 13 or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person 14 who [2] makes affidavit that he is [3] unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.’” 15 Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 214 16 (1993) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). “Section 1915(a) thus contemplates that the 17 []person[] who is entitled to the benefits of the provision will have three characteristics: He 18 will have the capacity to sue or be sued, to make an affidavit, and to be unable to pay court 19 costs.” Id. “Such affidavit shall [also] state the nature of the action, . . . and affiant’s belief 20 that [he] is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “When a claim of poverty is made 21 under section 1915 ‘it is proper and indeed essential for the supporting affidavits to state 22 the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” United 23 States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 24 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). 25 In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must also submit a “certified copy 26 of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period 27 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. 28 King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). It is from the certified trust account statement 1 that the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in 2 the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for 3 the past six months, whichever is greater, unless he has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then 5 collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any 6 month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until 7 the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 85‒86. 8 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action when he filed 9 his complaint, nor has he filed a motion to proceed IFP, which includes both the affidavit 10 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and certified copies of his trust funds account 11 statements as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Therefore, until Plaintiff either pays the 12 full $405 filing fee “upfront,” Bruce, 577 U.S. at 86, or files a properly supported IFP 13 motion, his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 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 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 to 20 re-open his case by: (a) prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee 21 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914
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 JORDAN RAMOS, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01701-JES-LR Booking #6977025, 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 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 15 FAILURE TO MOVE TO Defendant. PROCEED IN FORMA 16 PAUPERIS PURSUANT 17 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 18 19 Plaintiff Jordan Ramos, currently detained at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 20 Department Men’s Central Jail, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were 22 violated during criminal proceedings held in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 23 SCD304625. Id. at 1. 24 FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS 25 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 26 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 27 $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 28 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2 2007) (“Cervantes”); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, 3 a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in 4 “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); Williams v. 5 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is 6 ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 7 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 9 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 10 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 11 2015) (emphasis added). “The in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to allow ‘[1] the 12 commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, 13 or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person 14 who [2] makes affidavit that he is [3] unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.’” 15 Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 214 16 (1993) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). “Section 1915(a) thus contemplates that the 17 []person[] who is entitled to the benefits of the provision will have three characteristics: He 18 will have the capacity to sue or be sued, to make an affidavit, and to be unable to pay court 19 costs.” Id. “Such affidavit shall [also] state the nature of the action, . . . and affiant’s belief 20 that [he] is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “When a claim of poverty is made 21 under section 1915 ‘it is proper and indeed essential for the supporting affidavits to state 22 the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” United 23 States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 24 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). 25 In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must also submit a “certified copy 26 of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period 27 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. 28 King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). It is from the certified trust account statement 1 that the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in 2 the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for 3 the past six months, whichever is greater, unless he has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then 5 collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any 6 month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until 7 the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 85‒86. 8 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action when he filed 9 his complaint, nor has he filed a motion to proceed IFP, which includes both the affidavit 10 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and certified copies of his trust funds account 11 statements as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Therefore, until Plaintiff either pays the 12 full $405 filing fee “upfront,” Bruce, 577 U.S. at 86, or files a properly supported IFP 13 motion, his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 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 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 to 20 re-open his case by: (a) prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee 21 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) in full; or (b) completing and filing a Motion and 22 Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP that complies with 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(a)(1), (2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2.b; and 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 neither pay the $405 filing fee in full nor sufficiently 27 complete and file the attached Motion and Declaration to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this 28 civil action will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and 1 || without further Order of the Court.’ 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: September 2, 2025 A ct A 4 Sar— Sur], . 5 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
15 \ Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to re-open the case by either prepaying the © Hl full $405 civil filing fee, or by submitting a properly supported IFP motion, his complaint 17 || will be subject to an initial review and may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 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. 19 || See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 30 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 damages from 21 defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 99 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 23 governmental entity.”). As currently pleaded, it appears Plaintiff's complaint will be 54 subject to sua sponte dismissal insofar as it appears to challenge the validity of a guilty plea entered in San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD304625. See ECF No. 1 at 6-8. 25 Constitutional challenges to the validity or duration of a prisoner’s confinement must be 5 raised in a petition for federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Muhammad v. Close, 6 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)); see also 27 || Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“The Court has long held 28 that habeas is the exclusive vehicle for claims brought by state prisoners that fall within the core of habeas, and such claims may not be brought in a [civil rights] action.”).