Christopher v. Las Colinas Detention Facility et al

1
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
SOPHIA NOELL CHRISTOPHER,
Booking No. 25728110,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAS COLINAS DETENTION FACILITY,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, U.S. GOVERNMENT,
PORSHA SNOW, CORPORAL HARNESS,
PARADA, MOSKLEVA,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-2838-CAB-SBC
ORDER:
(1) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND
(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEES
REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)
[Doc No. 5]
Sophia Noell Christopher (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se with a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	[Doc. No. 1.] 	When initiating the civil action,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). 	[Doc. No. 2.] 	The Court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the action on
December 18, 2025 because Plaintiff had failed to submit a complete IFP application
because she had not included a copy of her trust account statement for the 6-month period
immediately preceding the filing of her Complaint. [Doc. No. 3.] The Court gave Plaintiff
an opportunity to have the case reopened by either filing a properly supported IFP motion
Case 3:25-cv-02838-CAB-SBC Document 8 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
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
or paying the civil filing fee by February 2, 2026. [Id. at 3.] 	On January 15, 2026, Plaintiff
filed another Motion to Proceed IFP. [Doc. No. 5.] For the reasons discussed below, the
Court again DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion and DISMISSES the action without prejudice.
I. 	DISCUSSION
As discussed in this Court’s previous Order, parties instituting any civil action, suit
or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of
habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may
proceed despite a failure to pay the entire fee at the time of filing only if the court grants
the Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 	See Andrews v.
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); cf. Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73
F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here the IFP application is denied altogether,
Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid.”).
To proceed IFP, prisoners must “submit[] an affidavit that includes a statement of
all assets [they] possess[,]” as well as a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account
statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding
the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,
1119 (9th Cir. 2005). 	Using this financial information, the court “assess[es] and when
funds exist, collect[s], … an initial partial filing fee,” which is “calculated based on ‘the
average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account’ or ‘the average monthly balance in the
prisoner’s account’ over a 6-month term; the remainder of the fee is to be paid in ‘monthly
payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s
account.” 	Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2)). Thus, while
prisoners may qualify to proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing upfront,
they remain obligated to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. 	See Bruce v.
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.
Case 3:25-cv-02838-CAB-SBC Document 8 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
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
Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281
F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [Doc. No. 5] is again incomplete because she has failed
to include a certified copy of her trust account statement for the 6-month period
immediately preceding the filing of her Complaint. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); CivLR
3.2. 	Without a certified trust account statement, the Court is unable to assess any initial
partial filing fee that may be required. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
II. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the Court:
(1) 	DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 5] and DISMISSES
the action without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) & 1914(a).
(2) 	GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to re-open
her case by either: (a) prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee in one
lump-sum; or (b) filing a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes a prison
certificate, signed by a trust accounting official attesting as to her trust account balances
and deposits and/or a certified copy of her Inmate Statement Report for the 6-month period
preceding the filing of her Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and CivLR 3.2(b).
If Plaintiff chooses not to comply with this Order by either paying the $405 civil
filing fee and administrative fee in full by or submitting a properly supported IFP Motion
within forty-five (45) days, this case will remain dismissed without prejudice and without
further order of the Court based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
(3) 	DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved form
“Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.”
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 26, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02838-CAB-SBC Document 8 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3