Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Roeling Adams, Jr., an inmate proceeding without counsel, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officers J. Allesos and J. Baullada. Instead of paying the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), Adams moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court's order addressed only that financial application and the resulting filing-fee deficiency; it did not evaluate the underlying civil rights allegations.
The court explained that the ordinary civil filing and administrative charge totals $405, consisting of the $350 statutory fee and a $55 administrative fee. The additional administrative charge does not apply to a litigant granted IFP status. An action generally cannot proceed without full payment unless the court grants IFP leave. For prisoners, that process requires an affidavit listing all assets and a certified trust fund account statement, or institutional equivalent, covering the six months immediately before the complaint was filed.
The court also described how prisoner IFP status operates under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Using the financial information submitted, the court assesses and collects an initial partial filing fee calculated from the average monthly deposits or average monthly balance in the prisoner's account over a six-month term. The remainder of the fee is then paid in monthly installments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to the account. Thus, prisoners who qualify for IFP do not avoid the filing fee entirely; they remain obligated to pay the full amount over time.
The Court’s Holding
The court found Adams's IFP motion incomplete because it lacked a certified copy of his California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inmate trust account statements for the required six-month period. Without those records, the court could not determine his IFP eligibility or assess whether an initial partial filing fee was required. The order emphasized that IFP status does not eliminate a prisoner's obligation to pay the full filing fee: any initial partial fee is calculated from account deposits or balances, and the remainder is collected through monthly payments.
The court therefore denied the IFP motion and dismissed the action without prejudice under §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a). It gave Adams 45 days to reopen the case by either prepaying the entire $405 or filing a renewed IFP motion supported by a prison certificate from a trust accounting official concerning his balances and deposits, or a certified Inmate Statement Report for the six months preceding the complaint. If he does neither, the case will remain dismissed without prejudice and without further order. The Clerk was directed to provide the court-approved IFP motion and declaration form.
The court's disposition is expressly conditional: the dismissal is without prejudice, and Adams retains a defined window to cure the deficiency. The order does not reach the merits of the § 1983 claims against the correctional officers. It operates solely as a filing-fee compliance determination under the Prison Litigation Reform Act framework.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner seeking IFP status must provide the required certified trust account records for the six months preceding the complaint.
- The court dismissed this action without prejudice because the missing financial records prevented an eligibility determination and assessment of any initial partial filing fee.
- Adams may reopen the case within 45 days by paying $405 in full or submitting a properly supported renewed IFP motion.
- The order concerns filing-fee compliance and does not decide the merits of Adams's civil rights claims.
- IFP status does not waive the filing fee; it permits payment through an initial partial fee and subsequent monthly installments.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the statutory prisoner IFP requirements as a practical gatekeeping rule: financial eligibility cannot be assessed without the prescribed account documentation. It also distinguishes dismissal for nonpayment from a merits adjudication by making the dismissal expressly without prejudice and providing two concrete routes to reopen the case.
The order further underscores that IFP status permits payment over time rather than excusing the filing fee altogether. Its 45-day compliance period and direction to supply an official form give Adams a defined opportunity to cure the deficiency, but no further court order is required for the dismissal to remain in effect if he does not comply.