Arteaga v. M. Palmer 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
JOSE ARTEAGA,
CDCR #V-29993,
Plaintiff,
vs.
M. PALMER, R. BUCKEL,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3498-AJB-AHG
ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS (Doc. No. 5) AND
(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEES
REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)
On December 8, 2025, Jose Arteaga (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed
a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. Nos. 1; 2.) On January 6, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP
motion dismissed the action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to include a copy of
his prison certificate or trust account statement with his IFP motion, as required under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). (Doc. No. 3.) The Court also notified Plaintiff that to have his case
reopened, he must either pay the filing fee or submit a properly supported IFP motion by
February 20, 2026. (Id. at 3.)
On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Fee Waiver” which this Court
Case 3:25-cv-03498-AJB-AHG Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 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
construes as a Motion to Proceed IFP. (Doc. No. 5.) For the reasons discussed below, the
Court denies Plaintiff’s IFP motion and again dismisses the action without prejudice.
I. 	IFP MOTION
As discussed in this Court’s previous Order, all 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 [an] 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)). In short, 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-03498-AJB-AHG Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 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 is again incomplete because he has not included a
certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period immediately preceding
the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. As discussed
in this Court’s previous Order, without a certified trust account statement, the Court is
unable to assess whether any initial partial filing fee may be required to initiate the
prosecution of Plaintiff’s case. 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 this Order to re-open
his case by either: (a) prepaying the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee; or (b)
filing a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes a prison certificate, signed by a
trust accounting official attesting as to his trust account balances and deposits and/or a
certified copy of his Inmate Statement Report for the 6-month period preceding the filing
of his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. 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 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: March 13, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03498-AJB-AHG Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3