1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAYNE E. JONES, Case No.: 23-CV-347 JLS (AGS) CDCR #BU-7712, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. FOR FAILING TO PAY FILING FEE 14 REQUIRED BY

(a)

15 AND/OR FAILING TO MOVE TO SAN DIEGO CENTRAL JAIL; PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 GEORGE BAILEY DETENTION PURSUANT TO

(a) FACILITY; VISTA DETENTION 17 FACILITY; and OCEANSIDE POLICE 18 DEPARTMENT, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Plaintiff Wayne E. Jones (“Jones” or “Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and currently 22 incarcerated at Wasco State Prison (“WSP”), has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 23

. See ECF No. 1. While his pleading is difficult to decipher, it appears 24 Jones seeks to hold various San Diego County Sheriff’s Department jail and detention 25 facilities, as well as the Oceanside Police Department, liable for unlawfully arresting, 26 assaulting, harassing, and racially discriminating against him while he was held in their 27 custody on unspecified occasions from 2020 through 2022 based on a “crime [he] didn’t 28 commit.”

at 1‒5. 1 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 2 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 3 $402. See

(a).1 An action may proceed despite a failure to pay the entire 4 fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 5

(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007); 6 Rodriguez v. Cook,

(9th Cir. 1999). However, if the plaintiff is a 7 prisoner, even if he is granted leave to proceed IFP, he remains obligated to pay the entire 8 filing fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo,

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

(b)(1) & (2); 10 Taylor v. Delatoore,

(9th Cir. 2002). 11 Jones has not paid the $402 in filing and administrative fees required to commence 12 a civil action in federal court, nor has he requested leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28

(a). Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See

(a); 14 Andrews,

. 15 CONCLUSION 16 In light of the foregoing, the Court: 17 (1) DISMISSES this civil action WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s 18 failure to either pay the $402 civil filing and administrative fee or submit a Motion to 19 Proceed IFP pursuant to

(a) and 1915(a); and 20 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days’ leave from the date of this Order to 21 reopen the case by either: (a) paying the entire $402 civil filing and administrative fee in 22 full; or (b) completing and filing a Motion to Proceed IFP that includes a certified copy of 23 his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. 24 See

(a)(2). 25

26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $52. See 27

(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 28 1 In light of Jones’s incarceration, the Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court 2 ||to provide him with its approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to 3 || Proceed in Forma Pauperis.” If Jones fails to either prepay the $402 civil filing fee or 4 ||complete and file the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP with the Clerk within 45 days, 5 however, his case will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 || § 1914(a) and without further Order of the Court.’ 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: March 8, 2023 tt 9 on. Janis L. Sammartino 10 United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 > Jones is cautioned that if he chooses proceed with this action, his Complaint will be subject to an initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and/or 1915(e)(2)(B), regardless of whether he elects to pay 95 || the full $402 filing fee at once or is granted leave to proceed IFP and remains obligated to pay the full filing fee in installments. See Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting 26 || that

(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); 27 || see also Rhodes v. Robinson,

(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required 28 by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity”).