Payne v. City of San Diego et al

1
26-cv-379
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
CHRISTOPHER F. PAYNE,
CDCR # CC-6128,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, LA MESA
POLICE DEP’T, CITY OF LA MESA,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-0379-BTM-KSC
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY
FILING FEES REQUIRED BY
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) OR MOVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
[ECF NO. 1]
Plaintiff Christopher Payne, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(See ECF No. 1.) 	Plaintiff alleges Defendants
violated his constitutional rights by declining to approve him for “mental health diversion,”
related to a criminal case. 	(See id.) 	As discussed below, the action must be dismissed
without prejudice.
I. 	FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT
The action must be dismissed because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or moved
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 	All parties instituting any civil action, suit or
proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas
Case 3:26-cv-00379-BTM-KSC Document 2 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-379
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
corpus, must pay a total filing fee of $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A civil action may
proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to
proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 	See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047,
1051 (9th Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains
obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577
U.S. 82, 84 (2016), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed, see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).
Because Plaintiff has neither prepaid the $405 fee required to commence this civil
action, nor submitted an IFP Motion, his case cannot proceed. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);
Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.
II. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court:
(1) 	DISMISSES 	this 	civil 	action 	sua 	sponte 	without 	prejudice 	based 	on
Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $405 fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP.
(2) 	GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed
to: (a) prepay the entire $405 in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP
which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the six-month period
preceding the filing of his Complaint. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R.
3.2(b).2
1 	In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative
fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc.
Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to
persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.
2 	Plaintiff is cautioned that—even if he pays the full $405 civil filing fee or submits a
properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP—his Complaint will be subject to an initial review.
His complaint may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 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 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 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to
Case 3:26-cv-00379-BTM-KSC Document 2 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-379
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
(3) 	DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved
form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” for his use and
convenience. 	Should Plaintiff neither pay the $405 filing fee in full nor sufficiently
complete and file the attached Motion and Declaration to Proceed IFP by May 8, 2026, the
Clerk of the Court will enter judgment dismissing this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2026
___________________________
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge
state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v. Robinson,
621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 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.”).
Case 3:26-cv-00379-BTM-KSC Document 2 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3