(PC) Evans v. Solano County Sheriff ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RICHARD ANTHONY EVANS, No. 2:17-cv-0020-KJM-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s case was dismissed on October 10, 2019 and is on appeal to the U.S. 18 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ECF Nos. 38, 44. Currently before this court is the Court 19 of Appeals’ request to the District Court to determine whether plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status 20 should continue on appeal and plaintiff’s motion to stay deduction of court fees from his prison 21 trust account. ECF Nos. 45, 46. 22 In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal 23 In its orders screening plaintiff’s various complaints, the court informed plaintiff that he 24 had impermissibly filed his claims in numerous pleadings, had joined unrelated claims, and had 25 not made clear who the defendants were. ECF Nos. 13, 20. Plaintiff was given several 26 opportunities to file a complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 27 stated a cognizable claim. See ECF Nos. 13, 20, 33. When he again filed a complaint that joined 28 unrelated claims, failed to clearly identify all but one defendant, and failed to state a cognizable wOAOe MUEM VIE MVOC Sb PUR eerie PAY ee 1 | claim against that defendant, the court dismissed the case. Under these circumstances, the court 2 | must conclude that plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 3 Plaintiff's Motion Regarding Court Fee Deductions 4 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), prisoners who proceed in forma pauperis must nevertheless 5 || pay the court filing fee through monthly deductions from their institutional trust accounts 6 || whenever those accounts have a balance greater than $10. Plaintiff appears to assert that his 7 || institution has changed that threshold to $25 and asks the court to order CDCR to stay the 8 || deductions from his account “pending an investigation” into the change. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff 9 || cites no authority in support of his request. Moreover, even if true, plaintiff's claim about the 10 || threshold change would appear to benefit plaintiff rather than harm him. Absent any authority or 11 || reason for providing plaintiff with the relief he asks, the court must deny plaintiffs request. 12 Summary and Recommendation 13 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the United States District Judge 14 || assigned to this case certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 15 | and deny plaintiffs “motion for stay” (ECF No. 46). 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 18 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 19 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 20 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 21 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 22 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 | DATED: July 22, 2020. 24 > 25 / EDMUND F. BRENNAN 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28