(PC) Dearwester v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2021 )

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-00621-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FILING FEE 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND (Doc. 11) 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. On June 9, 2015, the Court 19 dismissed this action as duplicative. (Doc. 8.) 20 On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting relief from the filing fee payments 21 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). (Doc. 9.) On May 11, 2020, the Court denied the motion. (Doc. 22 10.) 23 On April 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “motion for the disposition of fines” pursuant to 24 California Penal Code § 1205(a). (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff requests that the Court “covert[ ]” the 25 outstanding $350 filing fee in this action into additional “days of imprisonment.” (Id. at 1.) 26 Although Plaintiff now characterizes the filing fee as a “fine,” it is not a fine and has not 27 been imposed as part of a criminal sentence. Rather, it is the fee for initiating this civil action. As the Court explained in its May 11, 2020 order, the filing fee is mandatory for plaintiffs 1 proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b); see also Soares v. Paramo, No. 3:13-cv- 2 02971-BTM-RBB, 2018 WL 5962728, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2018); Cartwright v. Sparks, No. 1:94-cv- 3 06044-AWI, 2012 WL 394175, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Adams v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff's Office, 4 No. 2:10-cv-01558-PHX-RCB, 2010 WL 4269528, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. 2010). 5 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. The Court will not entertain any 6 further motions in this closed case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Sheila K. Oberto 9 Dated: April 21, 2021 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27