From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gutierrez v. Six Unknown Names Agents

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California
Jun 17, 2013
Civil 13cv1289 MMA (JMA) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2013)

Opinion


MANUEL GUTIERREZ, BOP #XXXXX-XXX, Plaintiff, v. SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS; BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States, Defendants. Civil No. 13cv1289 MMA (JMA). United States District Court, S.D. California. June 17, 2013.

          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)

          MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.

         Plaintiff, currently detained at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center located in El Paso, Texas, and proceeding pro se, filed an illegible one-page complaint entitled "Civil Rights Action with the Writ of Summons and Complaint" "under 42 U.S.C. § 1983" (ECF No. 1) on June 3, 2013.

On June 13, 2013, before this Court issued any Order whatsoever, Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit "from the decision (describe it) entered in this action on the 10 day of June, 2013." See ECF Doc. No. 2. Because there is no such Order, Plaintiff's appeal is obviously premature. Therefore, this Court retains jurisdiction over the action. See United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 1981) (noting that if "the deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of untimeliness, lack of essential recitals, or reference to a nonappealable order, is clear to the district court, it may disregard the purported notice of appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has not been deprived of jurisdiction.") (citing Ruby v. Secretary of United States Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 388-89 (9th Cir. 1966) (en banc)).

         I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

         All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay this filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

All parties filing civil actions on or after May 1, 2013, must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. However, the additional $50 administrative fee is waived if Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP.

         Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to commence a civil action, nor has he submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, the case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.

         II. 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 $400 civil filing and administrative fee or submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and

         (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 includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2(b).

Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further with this action either by paying the full $400 civil and administrative filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), or moving to proceed IFP, his Complaint, which is currently comprised of a single illegible paragraph of incomprehensible legal jargon seeking unspecified relief against unidentified "agents" and the President of the United States, will be screened and immediately dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). 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 fails to state a claim); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) of all prisoner complaints).

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with this 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 complete and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within that time, this action shall remain dismissed without prejudice and without further Order of the Court.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Gutierrez v. Six Unknown Names Agents

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California
Jun 17, 2013
Civil 13cv1289 MMA (JMA) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2013)
Case details for

Gutierrez v. Six Unknown Names Agents

Case Details

Full title:MANUEL GUTIERREZ, BOP #XXXXX-XXX, Plaintiff, v. SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California

Date published: Jun 17, 2013

Citations

Civil 13cv1289 MMA (JMA) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2013)