(PC)Dearwester v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK LEE DEARWESTER, Case No. 1:15-cv-00354-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FILING FEE UNDER 28 U.S.C. 13 v. § 1915 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF (Doc. 19) CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Frank Lee Dearwester is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. On 19 September 4, 2015, the Court dismissed this action for failure to state a claim on which relief can 20 be granted. (Doc. 14.) On May 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting relief from the filing 21 fee payments required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). (Doc. 19.) 22 Prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis are “required to pay the full amount of a filing 23 fee” of a civil action they initiate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Such prisoners are required to pay “an 24 initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of … the average monthly deposits to the 25 prisoner’s account … or … the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month 26 period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” Id. “After payment of the initial partial 27 filing fee, the prisoner … [is] required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account.” Id. § 1915(b)(2). 1 In his motion, Plaintiff states that he currently works for the Prison Industry Authority at 2 Mule Creek State Prison, helping produce personal protective equipment. (Doc. 19 at 1-2.) He 3 currently owes restitution as well as the filing fees in multiple civil actions he initiated while 4 incarcerated. (See id. at 7.) Plaintiff states that 55 percent of his monthly wages are deducted for 5 restitution, while much of the remainder is deducted for the filing fees. (Id. at 2.) He states that 6 “[h]e was not aware that additional partial filing fees would stack up instead of be taken 7 sequentially,” with each case “taking a twenty percent … bite of Plaintiff’s wages.” (Id.) Plaintiff 8 therefore requests relief from the filing fee owed for this action. (Id. at 4.) 9 As an initial matter, the filing fee is mandatory. The in forma pauperis statute provides 10 that prisoners “shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee,” and the “court shall assess 11 and … collect … an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent” of the average monthly deposits or 12 average monthly balance in the prisoner’s trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (emphasis 13 added). Additionally, “the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of 14 the preceding month’s income.” Id. § 1915(b)(2) (emphasis added). The Court, therefore, does 15 not have the discretion to waive the filing fee. 16 In addition, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of whether filing fees from 17 multiple cases should be assessed sequentially or simultaneously against an inmate under section 18 1915(b)(2). In Bruce v. Samuels, the plaintiff, like Plaintiff in this case, “had previously incurred 19 filing-fee obligations in other cases and maintained that the monthly filing-fee payments for [the 20 present] case would not become due until those prior obligations were satisfied.” 136 S. Ct. 627, 21 630-31 (2016). The Supreme Court held, though, that the plaintiff must make the monthly filing- 22 fee payments in the present case simultaneously, not sequentially, with such payments in the 23 earlier-filed cases. Id. at 631. The same holds true for the initial partial filing fee. Id. at 631-32. 24 The Court additionally notes that Plaintiff has not yet made a payment for this case. (See 25 id. Doc. 19 at 7.) Although Plaintiff owes the filing fees for more than ten cases, due to the 26 requirement that prisons collect fees only when the amount in a prisoner’s account exceeds $10, 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), Plaintiff is currently making monthly payments in only two of these ten 1 The Court commends Plaintiff for his employment. The filing fee obligations and payment 2 amounts, however, are mandatory. See, e.g., Soares v. Paramo, No. 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB, 3 2018 WL 5962728, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2018); Cartwright v. Sparks, No. 1:94-cv-06044-AWI, 2012 4 WL 394175, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Adams v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff's Office, No. 2:10-cv-01558- 5 PHX-RCB, 2010 WL 4269528, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. 2010). Accordingly, the Court DENIES 6 Plaintiff’s motion. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Sheila K. Oberto 9 Dated: May 11, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27