Hammler v. Alvarez et al

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing civil action without prejudice for failing to pay filing fee required by 28 USC 1914(a) and/or failing to move to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a). Plaintiff is granted 45 days leave to (a) prepay the entire $ 400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. (blank motion to proceed informa pauperis mailed to Plaintiff). Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 9/25/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 Case No.: 3:17-cv-01533-JAH-WVG ALLEN HAMMLER, CDCR #F-73072, 11 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, 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 J. ALVAREZ, Correctional Officer; SOTO, Correctional Officer; J. NEVAREZ, Correctional Officer; HOUGH, Correctional Officer, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ALLEN HAMMLER (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and while incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento (“SAC”), in Represa, California, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff claims several Correctional Officers at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego violated his Eighth Amendment rights by employing excessive force against him while he was incarcerated there on October 20, 2016. See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1-2, 3, 14.1 25 26 1 27 The Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff has another civil rights action currently pending before Judge Battaglia in Hammler v. Aviles, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-01185-AJB-WVG (“Aviles”). 1 3:17-cv-01533-JAH-WVG 1 I. 2 Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).2 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 5 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 7 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the Plaintiff is a prisoner, and 8 even if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he remains obligated to pay the 9 entire filing fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 10 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) 11 & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 12 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to 13 commence this civil action, nor has he filed a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 16 II. Conclusion and Order 17 Accordingly, the Court: 18 (1) 19 DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’”) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). While Aviles also involves an alleged incident of excessive force at RJD, the two cases appear unrelated insofar as they involve different correctional officer defendants and allege separate causes of action arising more than two weeks apart. See Aviles, ECF No. 1 at 1, 3-9. 2 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. 2 3:17-cv-01533-JAH-WVG 1 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and 2 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is 3 filed to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) 4 complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust 5 account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 7 The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with the 8 Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In 9 Forma Pauperis.”3 If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee or complete 10 and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will remain 11 dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)’s 12 fee requirements and without further Order of the Court. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: September 25, 2017 HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further by either prepaying the full $400 civil filing fee, or 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. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he pays or is obligated to pay filing fees. 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); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”). 3 3:17-cv-01533-JAH-WVG

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?