(PC) Russo v. Arigalva, 1:23-cv-00703

Plaintiff Justin B. Russo, a pro se former state prisoner, filed a civil-rights action and was initially granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status.
Plaintiff was released from custody after filing; the Court confirmed his release and updated his address.
On July 21, 2023, the Court ordered Russo to either pay the remaining $350 filing fee in a lump sum or file a renewed, post-release IFP application by August 25, 2023.
Russo did not pay the fee or submit an updated IFP application by the deadline.
The magistrate judge found the PLRA fee-collection mechanism inapplicable post-release, summarized authority addressing released prisoners’ obligations, and concluded dismissal was appropriate.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule 110 and directed assignment to a district judge; Russo has 14 days to file objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Russo must pay the remaining filing fee or file a renewed IFP after release	Russo did not respond or provide a renewed IFP; no affirmative argument in the record	No active defense response; court seeks compliance with its order	Court: Russo must pay $350 or submit updated IFP; failure to do so supports dismissal without prejudice
Whether dismissal is warranted for failure to prosecute/obey court order under Rule 41(b)	No response; did not comply with order or prosecute	N/A (court sought dismissal given noncompliance)	Court: Factors (public interest, docket management, prejudice, alternatives) favor dismissal; recommended dismissal without prejudice

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (IFP standards and fee obligations)
Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82 (2016) (prisoner remains obligated to pay full filing fee in installments)
DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 315 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (after release, no prisoner account exists for fee deductions)
Gay v. Tex. Dep’t of Corr., 117 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1997) (released prisoner must pay remaining filing fees to proceed)
In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (released prisoner fee obligations continue)
Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 1997) (same)
Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (court may review post-release economic situation to fit fee)
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss for failure to comply with court orders)
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and obey rules)
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (public policy favors disposition on merits but dismissal can be warranted when plaintiff impedes progress)