Tyler Zequan Williams v. E. Covington, et al.

C.D. California

Tyler Zequan Williams v. E. Covington, et al.

DecidedNovember 3, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-01798

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Tyler Zequan Williams v. E. Covington, et al., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-01798-AH-(MBK) Date November 3, 2025 Title Tyler Zequan Williams v. E. Covington, et al.

Present: The Honorable Anne Hwang, United States District Judge

Yolanda Skipper —__———NotReported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff: Attorney(s) Present for Defendants: None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO REFILE IN FORMA PAUPERIS REQUEST OR PAY FILING FEE [JS-6] All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, prisoners must still pay the filing fee but may do so through monthly installment payments if granted IFP. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b); Johnson v. High Desert State Prison, 127 F.4th 123, 126, 128 (9th Cir. 2025). On September 5, 2025, the Court postponed ruling on Plaintiff’s IFP request (“Request”) because it was incomplete. Dkts. 2, 4. The Court directed Plaintiff to either: (1) refile a fully completed Request; or (2) pay the full filing fee. Dkt. 4. The Court warned that if Plaintiff did not comply within 30 days, the case would be dismissed without prejudice. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962) (“The authority . . . to dismiss sua sponte for lack of

prosecution . . . [is] vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Allen v. United States Dist. Ct. Dist. of Nevada, 2022 WL 16702429, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2022) (dismissing § 1983 action where inmate failed qualify for IFP or pay filing fee).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-01798-AH-(MBK) Date November 3, 2025 Title Tyler Zequan Williams v. E. Covington, et al.

Present: The Honorable Anne Hwang, United States District Judge

Yolanda Skipper —__———NotReported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff: Attorney(s) Present for Defendants: None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO REFILE IN FORMA PAUPERIS REQUEST OR PAY FILING FEE [JS-6] All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, prisoners must still pay the filing fee but may do so through monthly installment payments if granted IFP. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b); Johnson v. High Desert State Prison, 127 F.4th 123, 126, 128 (9th Cir. 2025). On September 5, 2025, the Court postponed ruling on Plaintiff’s IFP request (“Request”) because it was incomplete. Dkts. 2, 4. The Court directed Plaintiff to either: (1) refile a fully completed Request; or (2) pay the full filing fee. Dkt. 4. The Court warned that if Plaintiff did not comply within 30 days, the case would be dismissed without prejudice. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962) (“The authority . . . to dismiss sua sponte for lack of

prosecution . . . [is] vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Allen v. United States Dist. Ct. Dist. of Nevada, 2022 WL 16702429, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2022) (dismissing § 1983 action where inmate failed qualify for IFP or pay filing fee).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tyler Zequan Williams v. E. Covington, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-zequan-williams-v-e-covington-et-al-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack