(PC) Navarro v. Singh,et al. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY H. NAVARRO, No. 1:19-cv-00018-DAD-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING DECEMBER 10, 2020 13 v. ORDER AND DENYING MOTION FOR WAIVER OF FILING FEE 14 SINGH, et al., (Doc. Nos. 17, 18.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Larry H. Navarro is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. On March 19, 18 2020, the court dismissed this action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 19 (Doc. No. 15.) This case is now closed. On December 7, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion 20 requesting a waiver of the filing fee for this action. (Doc. No. 17.) 21 On December 20, 2020, the court issued an order that correctly indicated that plaintiff’s 22 request to proceed without the payment of fees was granted in this matter on January 8, 2019. 23 (Doc. No. 18, (citing Doc. No. 5 at 1).) However, the court mistakenly indicated that this would 24 result in the complete waiver of the fee requirement. (Id.) This was incorrect. The December 10, 25 2020 order is therefore VACATED and the instant order replaces it. 26 Prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis are “required to pay the full amount of a filing 27 fee” of any civil action they initiate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The in forma pauperis statute provides that prisoners “shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee,” and the “court 1 | shall assess and... collect... an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent” of the average monthly 2 | deposits or average monthly balance in the prisoner’s trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) 3 | (emphases added). Additionally, “the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 4 | percent of the preceding month’s income.” Jd. § 1915(b)(2) (emphasis added). 5 Therefore, according to the statute, the court does not have discretion to waive the filing 6 | fee. The filing fee obligations and payment amounts are mandatory. See, e.g., Soares v. Paramo, 7 | No. 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB, 2018 WL 5962728, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2018); Cartwright v. Sparks, 8 | No. 1:94-cv-06044-AWI, 2012 WL 394175, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Adams v. Maricopa Cty. 9 | Sheriff's Office, No. 2:10-cv-01558-PHX-RCB, 2010 WL 4269528, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. 2010). 10 Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 17) and 11 | confirms that he is required to pay the filing fee in connection with this action. 12 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a Dated: _ December 11, 2020 Lf YD: oe 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28