From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Funtanilla v. Tristan

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 8, 2007
234 F. App'x 505 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-17096.

Submitted March 12, 2007.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed June 8, 2007.

Gregorio C. Funtanilla, Jr., Corcoran, CA, pro se.

David N. Sunada, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Alvin Gittisriboongul, Attorney General's Office for the State of California, Sacramento, CA, David N. Sunada, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-06001-OWW.

Before: SKOPIL, FERGUSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Gregorio C. Funtanilla ("Funtanilla"), a California state prisoner, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officers violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The magistrate judge initially granted Funtanilla IFP status but, in response to the second of the defendants' two motions for involuntary dismissal, the magistrate judge later recommended revoking Funtanilla's IFP status and dismissing the case without prejudice. The district court adopted these recommendations, notwithstanding the fact that Funtanilla's fee was paid prior to the district court's issuance of the final dismissal order.

In dismissing the proceeding despite this payment, the district court relied on Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002), an Eleventh Circuit case in which the prisoner had paid the fee after dismissal. Here, in contrast, Funtanilla paid the fee prior to dismissal. Once Funtanilla's fee was paid, the issue of his IFP status became moot. See Lipscomb v. Madigan, 221 F.2d 798, 798 (9th Cir. 1955). Because Funtanilla's filing fee was paid prior to dismissal, the dismissal was in error.

REVERSED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Funtanilla v. Tristan

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 8, 2007
234 F. App'x 505 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Funtanilla v. Tristan

Case Details

Full title:Gregorio C. FUNTANILLA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David TRISTAN; et…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 8, 2007

Citations

234 F. App'x 505 (9th Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Ogeone v. Nakakuni

(Summons Returned Executed, filed on Nov. 20, 2013, ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff's attempted amendment, although…

Hardney v. Turner

In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that where plaintiff paid the filing fee after filing his…