(PC) Florence v. Kernan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID FLORENCE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00331-NONE-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S LETTER AS A MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 13 v. FILING FEES 14 KERNAN, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FILING FEES 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 35) 16 17 Plaintiff David Florence (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is a letter from Plaintiff concerning Plaintiff’s obligation to pay 20 the full filing fees to the District Court, filed December 11, 2020. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff states 21 that he has agreed to pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action, and pursuant to Court policy, each 22 month Plaintiff will owe 20 percent of the preceding month’s income towards the balance until 23 the filing fee is paid in full, and the facility will forward payments to the Court any time the 24 amount in his account exceeds $10.00. Plaintiff has filed multiple cases in District Court. 25 Plaintiff’s family sent him $170.00 on November 16, 2020, and Plaintiff expected CDCR to take 26 20 percent of the court fees, but not all of his money. CDCR took the whole $170.00. Plaintiff 27 contends that CDCR is taking out 20 percent of his deposits for each of the court case filing fees 28 he owes, rather than a total of 20 percent to be sent to the Courts. Plaintiff requests that the Court 1 send the Secretary of CDCR an order clarifying that CDCR should only deduct 20 percent from 2 Plaintiff’s trust account for all of his cases combined, rather than individually. (Id.) The Court 3 construes the letter as a motion for relief from filing fees. 4 Plaintiff is advised that CDCR’s deductions from his inmate trust account were properly 5 made in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82 (2016). 6 In Bruce, the Supreme Court held that “monthly installment payments, like the initial partial 7 payment, are to be assessed on a per-case basis” and that “simultaneous, not sequential, 8 recoupment of multiple filing fees” is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Id. at 85, 87. 9 Therefore, the simultaneous deductions from Plaintiff’s inmate trust account to pay multiple 10 outstanding filing fees were lawful and properly made. No relief from CDCR’s deduction of 11 funds from Plaintiff’s trust account is warranted, and the Court finds it unnecessary to issue any 12 clarifying order to the Secretary of CDCR. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 14 1. Plaintiff’s letter concerning the concerning Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the full filing fees 15 to the District Court, (ECF No. 35), is construed as a motion for relief from filing fees; 16 and 17 2. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from filing fees, (ECF No. 35), is DENIED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: December 16, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28