Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01164/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01164-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis

---

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

PEDRO CAMACHO-CORONA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-1164-MMA(WMC)

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL

ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

FOR FAILING TO PAY 

FILING FEE REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR

FAILING TO MOVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

vs.

DOUGLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION,

Defendant.

 Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution

Victorville located in Adelanto, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this action entitled

“Motion Pursuant to FRAP 21(a), 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651(a)(d), Rule 32(a)(1), Writ of

Mandamus.” Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

to commence a civil action; nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district court of the

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

$350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay this

filing fee only if the party 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); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169

F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

- 1 - 12CV1164

Case 3:12-cv-01164-MMA-WMC Document 2 Filed 05/16/12 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee required to commence a civil action, nor

has he submitted Motions to Proceed IFP. Therefore, the case must be dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Id.

II. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

(1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to pay the $350

filing fee or file Motions to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and

(2) GRANTS Plaintiff thirty (30) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: 

(a) prepay the entire $350 civil filing fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to

Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month

period preceding the filing of the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. CAL. CIVLR

3.2(b).1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiffs

with this Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis.” If either Plaintiff fails to prepay the $350 civil filing fee or complete

and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within that time, this action shall remain

dismissed without prejudice and without further Order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 16, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

1

 Plaintiff is cautioned that if he choose to proceed further with this action either by paying the full civil filing

fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), or moving to proceed IFP, his Complaint will be screened and is likely to be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) because his action appears to be a civil

rights action based on the conditions of his confinement. 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 fails to state a claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing

similar screening procedure required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). The Court’s initial review of the Complaint

reveals that the Southern District of California is not the proper forum for this action, as none of the events in

Plaintiff’s Complaint occurred in this District. Moreover, it does not appear that the Court has jurisdiction

here, as it appears that all of the parties Plaintiff has sued are located in Nebraska and Victorville, California.

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-01164-MMA-WMC Document 2 Filed 05/16/12 Page 2 of 2