UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE V. ALVAREZ, Case No. 5:25-cv-01859-MCS-PD Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. ON REQUEST TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ROBERTO A. ARIAS,

Defendant(s)/Respondent(s) CIVIL RIGHTS, HABEAS, AND SOCIAL SECURITY The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation prepared by the United States Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff(s)’/Petitioner(s)’ Request to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis and the documents submitted with the IFP Request. The Court: accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. CJ rejects the findings. conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. [] Accepts in part , the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Request to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis is: C1 DENIED. Plaintiff/Petitioner must pay the filing fees in full within 30 days of this order. [=] DENIED. This case is DISMISSED [_] with prejudice. [=] without prejudice. (JS-6). O DENIED. with leave to amend [_] the IFP application □□□ the complaint/petition within 30 days. If Plaintiff/Petitioner fails to submit the required documents within 30 days, this case will be dismissed. [1 GRANTED. GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the prisoner-Plaintiff owes the Court the total filing fee of $350.00. An initial partial filing must be paid within 30 days of this Order. Thereafter, monthly payments must be forwarded to the Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Failure to pay the filing fee, as ordered, may result in dismissal of the case. [_] GRANTED; L_] the Court will screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and, if applicable, § 1915A. L_] the Court will screen the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. fl Other: prepayment of the filing fee despite having been given an extension of time to do so. See Dkt. Nos. 5, 10. He was warned repeatedly that his failure to respond would result in his case being dismissed without prejudice. See id. Accordingly, dismissal is warranted. See Ingram v. Corpus, No.5:20-cv-01527-IVS-MAA, 2021 WL 1406614, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2021) (dismissing habeas petition when petitioner failed to comply with court’s order despite having been warned that his failure to do so might result in dismissal). fj fis / ft . Dated: _ November 12, 2025 By: Ln £\toard

HON. MARK C. SCARSI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CV-730R 9/25 Order Re: Report and Recommendation on Request to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis (Civil Rights, Habeas, and Social Security)