Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02191/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02191-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 25, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

ERIK PADILLA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHEI CLERK; STEPHANIE CLERK;

KATHIEA CLERK; SHERI H. WHITE,

Two; DONNA CLERK; BRANDON

WATTS; DEC NAZI; NAZI POPE,

One; NAZI POPE, Two; OSIRIUS

MAYOR, One; ISIS MAYOR, One;

AMEN SIM POLICE NAZI, Five;

JEREMIAH COMACHOS, Real Da

also known as Delilch Padilla also

known as Robert Flores also known as

Ru Ray also known as Marty Padilla;

MARTY PADILLA; RAMSES FNU,

Mark Padilla’s Wife; GREEK FNU,

Marty Padilla’s step son; ROBERT

CHUNG, Police; CAROL WALTERS,

New Police Officer Maintenance;

EVELYN WALKER, New Police

Officer Maintenance,

 Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-2191

D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00746-JB-KK

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

* The Court concludes that oral argument would not materially aid our

consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

Thus, we have decided the appeal based on the briefs.

Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under

the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Fed. R. App.

P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).

Appellate Case: 15-2191 Document: 01019592269 Date Filed: 03/25/2016 Page: 1 
_________________________________

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Mr. Erik Padilla sued in federal district court, but did not pay the filing fee

or file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court

gave Mr. Padilla time to make the payment or file an application for pauper

status. But Mr. Padilla did not take either step. As a result, the district court

dismissed the action without prejudice. Mr. Padilla appeals and seeks leave to

appeal in forma pauperis. We affirm and deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On appeal, Mr. Padilla argues only that he could not afford the filing fee.

But under federal law, the filing fee was mandatory. See Brown v. Eppler, 725

F.3d 1221, 1231 (10th Cir. 2013) (“all § 1915(a) does for any litigant is excuse

the pre-payment of fees”). If Mr. Padilla could not prepay the filing fee, he could

have applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). But he

did not apply for pauper status even after being given extra time for this purpose.

As a result, the district court did not err in dismissing the action.

In connection with the appeal, Mr. Padilla has requested leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. We deny this request because the appeal lacks any reasonable

basis under federal law. See Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C., 497 F.3d

1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) (denying a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

because the movant failed to show “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law

2

Appellate Case: 15-2191 Document: 01019592269 Date Filed: 03/25/2016 Page: 2 
and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal”). As a result, Mr. Padilla must

pay the filing fee within 21 days. 

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach

Circuit Judge

3

Appellate Case: 15-2191 Document: 01019592269 Date Filed: 03/25/2016 Page: 3