(PC) Felix v. Clendenin ( 2020 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Case No. 1:19-cv-01784-AWI-BAM (PC) 6 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 7 v. DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 8 CLENDENIN, et al., (ECF Nos. 7, 8) 9 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 10 11 Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil 12 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare 13 and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning 14 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 On March 5, 2020, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 16 that Plaintiff’s second application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied on the basis that 17 Plaintiff is able to afford the costs of this action, and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 18 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 8.) The Magistrate Judge found that, 19 based on the information provided by Plaintiff, it appeared that Plaintiff’s savings account was 20 only depleted after the filing of this action and the Court’s request for clarification of Plaintiff’s 21 assets, and therefore Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that prepayment of the filing fee and other 22 fees and costs in this action would be a financial hardship. (Id.) Those Findings and 23 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 24 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff filed objections to the 25 Findings and Recommendations on March 26, 2020. (ECF No. 9.) 26 In his objections, Plaintiff states that he will appeal the Court’s decision regarding 27 payment of the filing fee unless the Court reconsiders and waives the filing fee. Plaintiff further 28 states that, as a show of good faith, he will provide the Court with a $200.00 initial payment, sent 4:£0 UVM RAINE VVUIOCTE, BR POO I er OY Oe 1 || by a separate check, and will pay the second $200.00 payment by April 25, 2020 after his next 2 | vocational payment cycle, “for full payment to the Court pending the appeal, and 3 | reimbursement.” (ECF No. 9, p. 5.) It appears Plaintiff is arguing that he will pay the filing fee, 4 | appeal this Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then request 5 | reimbursement of the filing fee. 6 The Court finds Plaintiff's objections unpersuasive. Whether or not Plaintiff decides to 7 | appeal this Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiff's objections indicate that he is able to 8 | pay the full $400.00 filing fee to proceed with this action. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting 9 | that the Court grant him “Pro-Se status,” Plaintiff is already proceeding as a pro se litigant, and as 10 | such will be afforded the leniency the Court typically grants upon all pro se litigants, regardless 11 | of whether they are proceeding in forma pauperis. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 13 || de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiffs 14 | objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are 15 | supported by the record and proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations, (ECF No. 8), issued on March 5, 2020, are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is denied; and 20 3. Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff 21 shall pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If Plaintiff fails 22 to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed without 23 further notice. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dp || Dated: _May 7, 2020 _ 7 : 7 Cb Led — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28