1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PAUL ZARAGOZA, Case No.: 25-cv-1098-MMA-KSC

CDCR # F16090,

11

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL

Plaintiff, 12 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY vs. FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 13 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR FOR

14 FAILURE TO PROPERLY MOVE

G. CERVANTES, J. WEBER, TO PROCEED IN FORMA

15

PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO

16 Defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Paul Zaragoza (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently confined at Kern Valley 20 State Prison and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 21 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1. He alleges Defendants violated his constitutional rights 22 when they found him guilty of a rule violation without supporting evidence. See id. at 3. 23 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 24 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 25 $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 26

27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. 28 1 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th 3 Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a prisoner 4 who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in 5 “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); Williams v. 6 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether his action is 7 ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 8 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $405 in filing and administrative fees required to 10 commence this civil action, nor has he submitted a properly supported Motion to Proceed 11 IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 12 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 13 Accordingly, the Court: 14 (1) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice based on 15 Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion 16 to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a); 17 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is 18 filed to: (a) prepay the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or 19 (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust 20 account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2(b)2; and 22

23 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to 24 proceed IFP. Id. 25 2 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to re-open the case by either prepaying the full $405 civil filing fee, or by submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will be subject to an 26 initial review 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 the full filing fee at once, or is granted IFP status and is 27 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 28 l (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved 2 || form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for his use and 3 |}convenience. Should Plaintiff neither pay the $405 filing fee in full nor sufficiently 4 ||complete and file the attached Motion and Declaration to Proceed IFP within 45 days, 5 || this civil action will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), 6 without further Order of the Court. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: May 2, 2025 9 Wiaths LTUu- / hiphlr 10 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || 27 || damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2g || 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”).