Archie Tyrell Armstrong v. Cindy Lopez, et al.

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Archie Tyrell Armstrong v. Cindy Lopez, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARCHIE TYRELL ARMSTRONG, Case No. 25-cv-02207-BAS-BJW

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO PAY FILING FEE OR 13 v. FILE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 CINDY LOPEZ, et. al,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Archie Tyrell Armstrong, an inmate at the Centinela State Prison 18 proceeding pro se, has filed a civil complaint against Defendants (ECF No. 1) together with 19 a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a) (ECF No. 20 2). 21 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 22 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 23 $402. See

28 U.S.C. § 1914

(a).1 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 24 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 25

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

28 U.S.C. § 1914

(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2014)). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 28 1 |} 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes,

493 F.3d 1047, 1051

(9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 2 || Cook,

169 F.3d 1176, 1177

(9th Cir. 1999). However, if the plaintiff is a prisoner, as 3 || Plaintiff is here, even if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he will remain 4 || obligated to pay the entire filing fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo,

775 F.3d 5

|} 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 6 || U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (2); Taylor v. Delatoore,

281 F.3d 844, 847

(9th Cir. 2002). 7 On November 12, 2025 the Court denied Plaintiff's initial request to proceed IFP. 8 ||(ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff has not since prepaid the $402 in filing and administrative fees 9 ||required to commence this civil action or filed a Motion to Proceed IFP which complies 10 || with

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(1) and (2). Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 11 1914(a); Andrews,

493 F.3d at 1051

. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff must either (1) prepay the entire $402 civil filing and 13 |}administrative fee in full; or, (2) complete and file a properly supported Motion to Proceed 14 || IFP by January 26, 2026—forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order. See 28 U.S.C. 15 1915(a)(2); CivLR 3.2(b). The Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff 16 || with this Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed 17 || In Forma Pauperis.”” 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 |} DATED: December 12, 2025 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 22 23 □□ 14 ? Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further by either prepaying the full $402 civil filing fee or submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will be screened before 95 || Service and may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B). See Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122

, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e) “not only 26 permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune); see also Rhodes v.

27 Robinson, 621

F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening required by

28 U.S.C. § 28

1915A of all complaints filed by prisoners “seek[ing] redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity’).

Reference

Status
Unknown