Armstrong v. Doe
3:25-cv-01176
S.D. Cal.Jun 9, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Archie Tyrell Armstrong, an inmate at Centinela State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging wrongful conviction in San Diego County.
- Armstrong sought to sue various unidentified state and local officials but did not name specific individuals.
- Upon filing, Plaintiff neither paid the required $405 civil filing fee nor submitted a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with the necessary affidavit and certified trust account statement.
- Some financial records were submitted by the prison, but without the requisite affidavit and motion signed by Armstrong.
- The prior, substantially similar case Armstrong v. County of San Diego, et al., S.D. Cal. No. 23-cv-1684-CAB-DDL, was pending or resolved.
- The Court reviewed the procedural defaults and addressed requirements under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to pay filing fee/properly move to proceed IFP | Financial documents submitted via prison should suffice | Strict compliance with filing and IFP requirements is necessary | Action dismissed for failure to pay fee or properly move to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915 |
| Sufficiency of IFP Submissions | Trust account statement submitted | Requires both affidavit and trust statement by plaintiff | Insufficient; both affidavit and trust statement required; dismissal without prejudice |
| Previous litigation of same claims | New complaint raises wrongful conviction issues | Plaintiff previously filed a suit on "same facts" | Plaintiff cautioned claims may be subject to dismissal for being duplicative |
| Opportunity to cure procedural defects | Plaintiff may wish to proceed | — | Plaintiff given 45 days to cure by paying fee or filing compliant IFP motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (outlines requirements for IFP progression and impact of nonpayment)
- Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999) (plaintiff must exhaust administrative options for IFP)
- Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82 (2016) (establishes prisoner responsibility for incremental IFP payments)
- Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015) (application of payment obligations under IFP statute)
- Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2002) (remaining obligated to pay full fee even if case dismissed)
- Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (certified trust account statement requirement for IFP)
- United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981) (affidavit supporting IFP must be particular and definite)
- Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1995) (duplicative prisoner complaints may be dismissed sua sponte)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (court must dismiss frivolous, malicious, or immune complaints sua sponte under §1915(e))
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2010) (screening required for prisoner complaints seeking redress from government)