Finnegan

Finnegan v. Uber

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 30, 20213:21-cv-00670California909 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SEAN MATTHEW FINNEGAN, Case No.: 21cv670 DMS (RBB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER (1) GRANTING

v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

UBER,

AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Defendant. WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK

OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

17 Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a form Complaint along 18 with a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 19 20 A. Motion to Proceed IFP All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 21 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 22 $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 23 prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 24 25 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.