Strojnik v. Carte Hotel Ventures, LP

District Court, S.D. California·Decided January 9, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-01088·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 PETER STROJNIK, Case No.: 22-CV-1088 TWR (AGS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING FILING FEE 13 v. OR APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, through Rob

Bonta in his official capacity as the 15 Attorney General of the State of 16 California; and CARTÉ HOTEL VENTURES, LP, 17 Defendants. 18 19

20 Plaintiff Peter Strojnik, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in July 2022 and a First 21 Amended Complaint in September 2022. (See generally ECF Nos. 1, 4.) Neither 22 Complaint was accompanied by a filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis 23 (“IFP”). All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 24 United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay filing and 25 administration fees totaling $402.1 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A court may, however, in its 26

27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of 28 1 || discretion, allow a plaintiff to commence a proceeding without paying these fees if the 2 || plaintiff seeks leave to proceed IFP by submitting an affidavit demonstrating the fees 3 |}impose financial hardship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 4 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Although the statute does not specify the qualifications for 5 proceeding IFP, the plaintiffs affidavit must allege poverty with some particularity. 6 || Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Granting a plaintiff leave to proceed IFP may be proper, for 7 ||example, when the affidavit demonstrates that paying court costs will result in a □□□□□□□□□□□ 8 ||inability to afford the “necessities of life.’ Jd. The affidavit, however, need not 9 demonstrate that the plaintiff is destitute. Jd. Here, Plaintiff has not paid the required filing 10 || fee nor filed an application to proceed IFP. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to either pay 11 the full $402 filing fee or file an application to proceed IFP within thirty (30) days of the 12 of this Order. If Plaintiff does not timely pay the filing fee or file an application to 13 || proceed IFP, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. 15 Dated: January 9, 2023 —_—— I [59 bee 17 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ng Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

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

Strojnik v. Carte Hotel Ventures, LP, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Strojnik v. Carte Hotel Ventures, LP (Strojnik v. Carte Hotel Ventures, LP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related