Shallowhorn v. Carrillo

District Court, S.D. California·Decided May 28, 2024·No. 3:24-cv-00399·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFRED E. SHALLOWHORN, Case No.: 3:24-cv-0399-WQH-DTF CDCR #P-13049, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. (1) SUA SPONTE GRANTING 14 EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

15 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA J. CARRILLO, F. NUNEZ, J. GALINDO, PAUPERIS AND 16 SGT. ESTRADA, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN 17 DOE #2, G. HOPPER, H. MOSELEY, F. (2) DENYING MOTION FOR GUZMAN, R. VELEZ, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 18 Defendants. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT 19

20 21 22 INTRODUCTION 23 On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff Alfred E. Shallowhorn (“Plaintiff”), then- 24 incarcerated at Centinela State Prison (“CEN”) and proceeding pro se, filed a civil action 25 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 1.) On March 11, 2024, the Court dismissed 26 the case because Plaintiff had failed to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma 27 pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3.) The Court gave Plaintiff 45 days (or until April 29, 2024) 28 to have his case reopened by either paying the filing fee or submitting an IFP motion. Id. 1 On March 13, 2024, prison officials at CEN electronically submitted a copy of 2 Plaintiff’s prison certificate and trust account statement. (See ECF No. 4.) And on March 3 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address, indicating he had been transferred 4 from CEN to California State Prison, Lancaster (see ECF No. 5), and a Motion for 5 Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff, however, 6 has not submitted an IFP application or the civil filing fee. 7 FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR MOVE TO PROCEED IFP 8 Because Plaintiff has not filed an IFP motion or paid the requisite filing fee, his case 9 remains dismissed. As discussed in this Court’s March 11, 2024, Order, all parties 10 instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except 11 an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only 13 if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. 14 Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Cervantes”). A prisoner who is granted 15 leave to proceed IFP, however, remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or 16 “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 17 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. 18 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 19 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 20 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 21 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 22 2015) (emphasis added). In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must also 23 submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for 24

25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. 27 Dec. 1, 2023). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 28 1 ... the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). It is from the certified 3 trust account statement that the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 4 monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance 5 in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless he has no assets. See 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the 7 prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s 8 income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to 9 the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 10 85‒86. 11 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action when he filed 12 his Complaint, nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes both the affidavit 13 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the certified copies of his trust funds account 14 statements required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). While CEN has submitted a prison 15 certificate and printouts of Plaintiff’s trust account activity on his behalf, see ECF No. 4, 16 this accounting, unless accompanied by a motion and affidavit submitted by Plaintiff, is 17 insufficient. “The in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to allow ‘[1] the 18 commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, 19 or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person 20 who [2] makes affidavit that he is [3] unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.’” 21 Rowland v. Calif. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 214 (1993) 22 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). “Section 1915(a) thus contemplates that the []person[] who 23 is entitled to the benefits of the provision will have three characteristics: He will have the 24 capacity to sue or be sued, to make an affidavit, and to be unable to pay court costs.” Id. 25 “When a claim of poverty is made under section 1915 ‘it is proper and indeed essential for 26 the supporting affidavits to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, 27 definiteness and certainty.’” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 28 (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). 1 Therefore, unless Plaintiff either pays the filing fee “upfront,” Bruce, 577 U.S.

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

Shallowhorn v. Carrillo, (S.D. Cal. 2024).

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

Related

Andrews v. Cervantes
493 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Ira Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Service Co.
775 F.3d 12 (First Circuit, 2014)
Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group
787 F.3d 1226 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)