From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. San Diego Police

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 28, 2021
Case No.: 3:21-cv-00073-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021)

Opinion

Case No.: 3:21-cv-00073-DMS-KSC

01-28-2021

CEDRICK D. JONES, Booking # 20940268, Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO POLICE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO PAY FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

Plaintiff Cedrick D. Jones ("Plaintiff"), currently detained at the George F. Bailey Detention Facility, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (See ECF No. 1, Compl.) I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") Status

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of /// /// $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the Plaintiff is a prisoner, and even if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he remains obligated to pay the entire filing fee in "increments," see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additionaladministrative fee of $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. --------

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $402 in filing and administrative fees required to commence this civil action. Although Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, (see ECF No. 2), he has not attached "a certified copy of the trust account statement (or institutional equivalent) for [Plaintiff] for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint . . . obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined" as required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(2). The trust account statements attached to Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP and prison certificate are not signed by an official at George Bailey Detention Facility. (See ECF No. 2, at 4-5.) Without the certified trust account statements, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed IFP or assess what, if any, initial partial filing fee may be due. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (b)(1). As a result, Plaintiff's case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. \\\ \\\

II. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

(1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the $402 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and Section 1915(a); and

(2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: (a) prepay the entire $402 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2(b).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with this Court's approved form "Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis." If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $402 civil filing fee or complete and submit a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will remain dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to satisfy the fee requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and without further Order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 1/28/2021

/s/_________

Hon. Dana M. Sabraw

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Jones v. San Diego Police

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 28, 2021
Case No.: 3:21-cv-00073-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021)
Case details for

Jones v. San Diego Police

Case Details

Full title:CEDRICK D. JONES, Booking # 20940268, Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO POLICE, et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 28, 2021

Citations

Case No.: 3:21-cv-00073-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021)