Padilla v. Clerk ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 25, 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
_________________________________
ERIK PADILLA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 15-2191
D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00746-JB-KK
SHEI CLERK; STEPHANIE CLERK; (D. N.M.)
KATHIEA CLERK; SHERI H. WHITE,
Two; DONNA CLERK; BRANDON
WATTS; DEC NAZI; NAZI POPE,
One; NAZI POPE, Two; OSIRIUS
MAYOR, One; ISIS MAYOR, One;
AMEN SIM POLICE NAZI, Five;
JEREMIAH COMACHOS, Real Da
also known as Delilch Padilla also
known as Robert Flores also known as
Ru Ray also known as Marty Padilla;
MARTY PADILLA; RAMSES FNU,
Mark Padilla’s Wife; GREEK FNU,
Marty Padilla’s step son; ROBERT
CHUNG, Police; CAROL WALTERS,
New Police Officer Maintenance;
EVELYN WALKER, New Police
Officer Maintenance,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
The Court concludes that oral argument would not materially aid our
consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
Thus, we have decided the appeal based on the briefs.
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under
the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Fed. R. App.
P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mr. Erik Padilla sued in federal district court, but did not pay the filing fee
or file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court
gave Mr. Padilla time to make the payment or file an application for pauper
status. But Mr. Padilla did not take either step. As a result, the district court
dismissed the action without prejudice. Mr. Padilla appeals and seeks leave to
appeal in forma pauperis. We affirm and deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
On appeal, Mr. Padilla argues only that he could not afford the filing fee.
But under federal law, the filing fee was mandatory. See Brown v. Eppler, 725
F.3d 1221, 1231 (10th Cir. 2013) (“all § 1915(a) does for any litigant is excuse
the pre-payment of fees”). If Mr. Padilla could not prepay the filing fee, he could
have applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). But he
did not apply for pauper status even after being given extra time for this purpose.
As a result, the district court did not err in dismissing the action.
In connection with the appeal, Mr. Padilla has requested leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. We deny this request because the appeal lacks any reasonable
basis under federal law. See Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C., 497 F.3d
1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) (denying a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
because the movant failed to show “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law
2
and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal”). As a result, Mr. Padilla must
pay the filing fee within 21 days.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
3