Tyler v. Matruz

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJuly 1, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-01337
StatusUnknown

This text of Tyler v. Matruz (Tyler v. Matruz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tyler v. Matruz, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDIE TYLER, Case No.: 25-cv-01337-CAB-DEB CDCR #AS-4717, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. FOR FAILING TO PAY FILING FEE 14 REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) MATRUZ, Captain, et al., 15 AND/OR FAILING TO MOVE TO Defendants. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 17 18 Plaintiff Claudie Tyler, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 19 Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 20 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [See Compl., Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff claims more 21 than a dozen named and unnamed RJD officials failed to protect him from being assaulted 22 by a cellmate in 2021, charged him with false disciplinary violations, and engaged in 23 various acts of racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation, “abuse” and “oppression” 24 against him on several occasions throughout 2023 and 2024. [Id. at 5‒13.] He seeks $200 25 million in general and punitive damages. [Id. at 20.] 26 I. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS 27 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 28 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 1 $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 4 2007) (“Cervantes”); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, 5 a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in 6 “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); Williams v. 7 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is 8 ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 9 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 11 of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and which 12 demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 13 Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). In support of this affidavit, prisoners like Plaintiff must also 14 submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for 15 . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). It is from the certified 17 trust account statement that the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average 18 monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance 19 in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless he has no assets. See 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the 21 prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s 22 income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to 23 the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 24 85‒86. 25 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action when he filed 26 his Complaint, nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes both the affidavit 27 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and the certified copies of his trust funds account 28 statements required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). While RJD has submitted a prison 1 certificate and copies of Plaintiff’s CDCR Inmate Statement Report on his behalf, see Doc. 2 No. 2, this accounting, unless accompanied by a motion and affidavit submitted by Plaintiff 3 himself, is insufficient. “The in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to allow ‘[1] the 4 commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, 5 or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person 6 who [2] makes affidavit that he is [3] unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.’” 7 Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 214 8 (1993) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). “Section 1915(a) thus contemplates that the 9 []person[] who is entitled to the benefits of the provision will have three characteristics: 10 He will have the capacity to sue or be sued, to make an affidavit, and to be unable to pay 11 court costs.” Id. “Such affidavit shall [also] state the nature of the action, . . . and affiant’s 12 belief that [he] is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “When a claim of poverty 13 is made under section 1915 ‘it is proper and indeed essential for the supporting affidavits 14 to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” 15 United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United 16 States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). 17 Therefore, unless Plaintiff either pays the filing fee “upfront,” Bruce, 577 U.S. at 86, 18 or files a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP that includes the affidavit required by 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Cervantes, 493 20 F.3d at 1051. 21 II.

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

Related

Rhodes v. Robinson
621 F.3d 1002 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Tomaiolo v. Mallinoff
281 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2002)
Andrews v. Cervantes
493 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo
775 F.3d 1182 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group
787 F.3d 1226 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tyler v. Matruz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-matruz-casd-2025.