Opinion
Case No.: 3:19-cv-00017-GPC-JLB
01-30-2019
ERIC MEYER, Plaintiff, v. WORLD BANK; INT'L MONETARY FUND; EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR FAILING TO PREPAY FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)
ERIC MEYER ("Plaintiff"), a psychiatric patient at Chicago Read Mental Health Center in Chicago, Illinois, and proceeding pro se, has filed this civil action using the Court's form Complaint pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and naming the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank as Defendants. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time he submitted his Complaint, nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request 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 $400. 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 IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment of fees to file an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015).
In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June. 1, 2016). The additional $50 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.
It is unclear whether Plaintiff is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), but if he is, he is further cautioned that he even if he files an IFP Motion and affidavit in compliance with § 1915(a)(2), he will nevertheless remain obligated to pay the entire 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). A "prisoner" is defined as "any person" who at the time of filing is "incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 847.
If Plaintiff is a prisoner, he must also submit a "certified copy of [his] trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) . . . for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). From the certified trust account statement, the Court will assess an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in Plaintiff's account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless he has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (4); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850. After, the Court will direct the institution having custody to collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month's income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forward them to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Because Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action, nor filed a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.
II. Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, the Court:
(1) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a).
(2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b).
(3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with the Court's approved form "Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis." If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee or fully complete and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will remain dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)'s fee requirement and without further Order of the Court.
Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further by submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will be reviewed before service and may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays the full $400 filing fee at once, or is granted IFP status and is obligated to pay the full filing fee in installments. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) "not only permits but requires" the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec'y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) ("Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person who, under the color of state law, abridges rights 'unambiguously' created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.") (quoting Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283 (2002)) (emphasis added); see also Knapp v. Cate, No. 1:08-CV-01779-BAM PC, 2011 WL 5416342, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011) ("Plaintiff does not possess any rights enforceable in this section 1983 suit for violations of international law."); accord Washington v. Richard J. Donovan Corr. Facility, No. 3:17-CV-01615-MMA-PCL, 2017 WL 8944750, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2017).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2019
/s/_________
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
United States District Judge