Pittman v. Pearson et al
Filing
2
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Court dismisses action sua sponte w/o prejudice for failing to pay $350 filing fee or file a Motion for IFP. Pla granted 45 days leave from the date of this Order to a.) prepay the entire $350 filing fee in full, or b .) complete and file a Motion for IFP t/w a certified copy of his trust acct statement for 6-month period preceding the filing of Complaint.. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 5/7/2009. Blank Motion for IFP form t/w copy of this Order mailed to Plaintiff(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(jah) (kaj).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center ("CRC") 20 in Norco, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 21 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 I. 23 Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district court of the D. PEARSON; MERCER; P. FLORST, Defendants. vs. WILBUR LANN PITTMAN, CDCR #F-64353, Plaintiff,
Civil No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
09-0931 IEG (PCL)
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)
24 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 25 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay this filing fee only 26 if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 28 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee required
-109cv0931
1 to commence a civil action, nor has he submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. Therefore, the case 2 must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Id. 3 II. 4 5 Conclusion and Order For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: (1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to pay the $350
6 filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and 7 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed to:
8 (a) prepay the entire $350 civil filing fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed 9 IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period 10 preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2(b).1 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with this
12 Court's approved form "Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma 13 Pauperis." If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $350 civil filing fee or complete and submit the 14 enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within that time, this action shall remain dismissed without 15 prejudice and without further Order of the Court. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 full civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), or moving to proceed IFP, his Complaint will be subject to the mandatory screening and sua sponte dismissal provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 25 forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim); see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A(b)). Moreover, such a 26 dismissal may be counted as a "strike" against Plaintiff if he requests IFP status in any future civil action
(noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) "not only permits but requires" the court to sua sponte dismiss an in
1
DATED: May 7, 2009 IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge United States District Court
Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further with this action either by paying the
27 "[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three strikes rule[.]"). Finally, to the extent Plaintiff's Complaint, which is almost wholly 28 uncomprehensible, alleges civil rights violations occurring at CRC in Norco, it at the very least lacks
proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 1406(a). -209cv0931
filed while he is incarcerated. See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1052 (under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?