Arteaga v. M. Palmer et al

1
25-cv-03498-AJB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSE ARTEAGA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
M. PALMER, R. BUCKEL,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-03498-AJB-AHG
ORDER REOPENING CASE AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY
THE FILING FEE
(Doc. No. 7)
On December 8, 2025, Plaintiff Jose Arteaga, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis (“IFP”). On January 6, 2026, the Court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the
action because Plaintiff failed to provide a certified copy of his prison trust account
statement, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)(2). (Doc. No. 3.) The Court gave Plaintiff
until February 20, 2026 to have his case reopened by either submitting a properly supported
IFP motion or by paying the full $405 filing and administrative fees. (See id. at 3.)
Plaintiff filed another IFP motion on January 20, 2026. (Doc. No. 5.) But, again, he
failed to provide a copy of his trust account statement. See id. As such, on March 13, 2026,
the Court denied Plaintiff’s second IFP motion and again dismissed the action without
Case 3:25-cv-03498-AJB-AHG Document 9 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-03498-AJB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prejudice. (Doc. No. 6.) The Court gave Plaintiff another 45 days, or until April 27, 2026,
to either submit a properly supported IFP motion, or pay the $405 filing fee. (See id. at 3.)
Plaintiff failed to do either by the deadline and the case was closed.
On September 16, 2026, over four months after the deadline passed, Plaintiff filed a
“Motion to Reopen Case, Motion for Extension of Time.” (Doc. No. 7.) In it, he states he
is able to pay the full $405 filing fee and requests an extension of time to do so because,
despite his efforts, he has had difficulty getting prison staff to release the funds from his
trust account. (See id. at 3.) While Plaintiff’s request is untimely, because he is an inmate
proceeding pro se, the Court GRANTS the motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 7), in
the interest of justice. As such, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to reopen the case.
Plaintiff must submit the filing fee no later than November 6, 20261 or the case will again
be closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2026
1 	If Plaintiff timely pays the $405 filing and administrative fees, his Complaint will still be subject
to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to “dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint—(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The required screening provisions of § 1915A apply to all prisoners, no
matter their fee status, who bring suit against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. See, e.g.,
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446–47 (9th Cir. 2000).
Case 3:25-cv-03498-AJB-AHG Document 9 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2