Salcida v. Cota et al

3:25-cv-3779-CAB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN ANGEL SALCIDA,
CDCR #F04429,
Plaintiff,
v.
JONATHAN P. COTA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3779-CAB-BJW
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS[Doc No. 2]
John Angel Salcida (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 1 (“Complaint”).] Plaintiff did
not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action when he
filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] As discussed below, the Court DENIES
the IFP Motion.
I. 	MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
$405. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 	The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to
prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Case 3:25-cv-03779-CAB-BJW Document 4 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

3:25-cv-3779-CAB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
§ 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). However, a prisoner granted leave to proceed
IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v.
Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84–85 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.
2015), and regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatorre, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).
Section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a
“certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the
6-month 	period 	immediately 	preceding 	the filing 	of 	the 	complaint[.]” 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). 	From the certified
trust account statement, the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average
monthly deposits in the account, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the
past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1)(A)–(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 	The institution having custody of the
prisoner then collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s
income, in any month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to
the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at
84–85.
In support of his request to proceed IFP, Plaintiff has submitted a prison certificate
authorized by a prison accounting official and a copy of his Inmate Statement Report. See
Doc. No. 3; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2; Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119.
These documents show that for the six months immediately preceding filing of the
Complaint, Plaintiff carried an average monthly balance of $3,646.65 and average monthly
deposits of $2,224.76. [See Doc. No. 3 at 4.] The balance in Plaintiff’s trust account as of
December 29, 2025 was $741.29. [Id. at 2, 4.]
In this matter, Plaintiff has not shown the indigence required to proceed IFP.
Therefore, because Plaintiff has shown that he is able to pay the filing fee in total, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED.
Case 3:25-cv-03779-CAB-BJW Document 4 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3:25-cv-3779-CAB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. 	CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP. 	[Doc. No. 2]. 	Because
Plaintiff has not qualified to proceed IFP, he must pay the $405 civil filing fee within forty-
five (45) days of the date of this Order or the case will be dismissed without prejudice.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03779-CAB-BJW Document 4 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3