United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER: 1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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) DENYING MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AS MOOT (ECF Doc. No. 11)
ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.
Joshua David Williams ("Plaintiff"), a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California Institution for Men ("CIM") in Chino, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action ("Compl.") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF Doc. No. 1).
I. Allegations and Procedural Background
In his Complaint, as well as in several supplemental documents and exhibits he has filed in support (ECF Doc. Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 17), Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief related to San Diego Superior Court criminal proceedings which were pending at the time he filed suit, and was still detained at the San Diego Central Jail. See Compl. (ECF Doc. No. 1) at 8, citing Case Nos. SCD 247180 and SCD 255778. While not altogether clear, it appears Plaintiff seeks this Court's assistance in "reversing" his state court proceedings, based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Id. at 13. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief "enjoining the prosecution from continuing, " "forcing [prosecutors] to produce... evidence withheld by their office, " and a "reversal and dismissal of all [his] present and previous cases." Id. at 12.
In addition, Plaintiff has filed a separate Motion for Declaratory Relief asking the Court to "add" San Diego Superior Court Case SCD 255778 to this case, because it is related, and involves an "illegal" arrest (ECF Doc. No. 11).
Finally, on October 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been assigned Case No. 14-73205 (ECF Doc. No. 18). "A petition for a writ of mandamus does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction, " however. United States v. Valenzuela-Arisqueta, 724 F.3d 1290, 1297 n.8 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Ellis v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma), 360 F.3d 1022, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that the "district court does not lose jurisdiction over a case merely because a litigant files an interlocutory petition for an extraordinary writ.").
II. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any 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). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay this filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("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).
Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to commence a civil action, nor has he submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, this case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.
III. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:
(1) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice for failing to pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee or submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a);
(2) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Relief without prejudice as moot (ECF Doc. No. 11);
(3) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the ...