(PC) Rodriguez v. Diaz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE RODRIGUEZ, No. 1:19-cv-01118-AWI-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE 13 v. FILING FEE AND THE ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT 14 DIAZ, et al., ECF No. 13 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this now-closed 18 civil rights action. On February 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). ECF No. 10. The case was closed on February 10. 20 ECF No. 12. However, plaintiff has now filed a motion requesting that we cancel the filing fee 21 and the order directing payment. ECF No. 13. 22 The relevant statutory requirement is clear: “if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an 23 appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The requirement is triggered by bringing an action, not by continuing one. 25 See Malone v. Miller-Stout, No. C08-5375BHS, 2008 WL 4154561, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 2, 26 2008) (“The court is not aware of any authority for the proposition that the fee is not collected on 27 cases where the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action prior to service.”). Because we have no 28 authority to override a statutory command, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 1 5 | □□ ISSO ORDERED. ° : —N prssann — Dated: _ March 24, 2020 4 UNIT2D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 | No. 205 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28