Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00345/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00345-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

17cv0345

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

GREGORY KONRATH,

Inmate #254068,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPT.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00345-BAS-PCL

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION:

1) 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) 

AND

2) FOR LACK OF PROPER VENUE 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 

AND § 1406(a)

Plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility in 

Westville, Indiana, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff seeks to sue the Los Angeles Police Department, on 

behalf of the estate of his late brother, for using excessive force while effecting his brother’s 

arrest in 1994. (Id. at 1-2.)

Case 3:17-cv-00345-BAS-PCL Document 3 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv0345

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

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

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 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An 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); Rodriguez v. 

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the plaintiff is a prisoner, as 

Plaintiff is here, even if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he will remain 

obligated to pay the entire filing fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 

1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to 

commence this civil action and he has not filed a Motion to Proceed IFP which complies 

with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.

II. Venue

While the Court would normally grant Plaintiff an opportunity to either pay the full 

filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed IFP, an initial review of his Complaint further reveals 

that, among other pleading deficiencies, he has filed his case in the wrong district. Venue 

may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive 

pleading and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th 

Cir. 1986). 

Section 1391(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides, in pertinent part, that a “civil 

action may be brought in – (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 

 

1

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 

fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court 

Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2014). The additional $50 administrative fee does 

not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00345-BAS-PCL Document 3 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv0345

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

defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial 

district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth 

Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). “The district court of a district in which is 

filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the 

interests of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been 

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in Indiana, and he seeks to sue the Los Angeles 

Police Department based on an incident occurring in a Los Angeles hair salon in 1994.

(ECF No. 1 at 1.) The City of Los Angeles is located in the County of Los Angeles, 

California, and it is within the Central District of California, Western Division. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 84(c)(2). Thus, no claim is alleged to have arisen in, and no Defendant is alleged to reside 

in, this district—the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Consequently, 

the Court finds dismissal of the action without prejudice based on a lack of proper venue 

is also appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice based 

on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), his failure 

to file a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and for lack of proper 

venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1406(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2017

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00345-BAS-PCL Document 3 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3