Finnegan et al v. Amtrak et al
Order Dismissing Action Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 6/4/21.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jmo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SEAN MATTHEW FINNEGAN,
Case No. 21-cv-00782-BAS-DEB
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
AMTRAK; AMTRAK POLICE
On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff Sean Matthew Finnegan, proceeding pro se, commenced
this action against Amtrak and the Amtrak Police Department and sought leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The Court issued an order denying the request,
noting that Plaintiff had submitted the incorrect IFP form and instructing him to complete
the long form application—a copy of which was mailed to him by the Clerk’s Office—and
file it with the Court by May 14, 2021. (ECF No. 3.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that
failure to timely file the correct IFP form would result in dismissal of his action without
prejudice. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed a corrected IFP application,
paid the filing fee for this case, or requested an extension of time to do so.
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a
civil action IFP if it is satisfied that the plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to
pursue the action.” La Douer v. U.C.S.F., No. 15-cv-02214-MEJ, 2015 WL 4323665, at
*2 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)). To obtain IFP status, an
applicant must “submit[ ] an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets” showing that
the applicant “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
An action cannot proceed where a plaintiff fails to prepay the entire fee only and is not
granted leave to proceed IFP. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.
2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
Thus, because Plaintiff has not filed a corrected IFP application as required by Court
order, and has otherwise failed to pay the filing fee, this action must be dismissed. See
Harris v. Madden, No. 1:19-CV-01216-DAD-SKO (PC), 2020 WL 1139464, at *1 (E.D.
Cal. Mar. 9, 2020) (dismissing action without prejudice after IFP application was denied
and Plaintiff failed to pay required filing fee pursuant to court order); see also Hamrick v.
Fukino, No. CV 08–00544 ACK–KSC, 2009 WL 1404535, at *2 (D. Hawai‘i May 20,
2009) (citing In re Perroton, 958 F.2d 889 (9th Cir.1992) and Olivares v. Marshall, 59
F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir.1995)) (finding plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an
application to proceed in forma pauperis were sufficient grounds to recommend dismissal
of the action).
Furthermore, weighing the relevant factors, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court finds that its interest in managing its docket and the
public interest in expeditious resolution of this litigation outweigh the policy favoring
disposition of cases on the merits. Defendant also has not been served and will therefore
not be prejudiced by dismissal, and there are no less drastic alternatives available at this
time. Thus, having the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to timely file a corrected IFP
application in accordance with the Court’s order warrants dismissal. Accordingly, the
Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action. The Clerk is instructed to
close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 4, 2021
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?