(PC) Rodriguez v. Castillo ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERLINDO RODRIGUEZ, JR. ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00409-AWI-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) 13 v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION 14 D. CASTILLO, ) ) (ECF No. 11) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Erlindo Rodriguez, Jr. is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 27, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending 21 that the instant action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 11.) 22 The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections 23 were due within fourteen days. On September 14, 2021, the Findings and Recommendations were re- 24 served on Plaintiff at his new address of record. On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to 25 the Findings and Recommendations indicating that he has no objection to dismissal. However, 26 Plaintiff asks if the filing fee will still be imposed. Plaintiff is advised that “[f]iling fees are part of the 27 costs of litigation,” and prisoner cases are no exception. Slaughter v. Carey, No. 28 CIVS030851MCEDADP, 2007 WL 1865501, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting Lucien v. DeTella, 141 1 || F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 1998)). Filing fees for initiating a lawsuit in district court are authorized by 2 2 U.S.C. § 1914. Duclairon v. LGBTQ Cmty. & Grace Cmty. Church Klan, No. 3:18-CV-01095-AC, 3 2018 WL 5085754, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 17, 2018) citing see Green v. Bank of America, No. 2:12-cv- 4 ||02093-GED-CKD PS, 2012 WL 5032414, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (denying refund of filing f 5 || after pro se plaintiff voluntarily dismissed complaint under Rule 41 (a)). The Prison Litigation Refor 6 || Act has no provision for return of fees that are partially paid or for cancellation of the remaining fee. 7 || Slaughter, 2007 WL 1865501, at 1 (citing see Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260, 261-62 (2d Cir. 2001) 8 || (inmates who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis were not entitled to refund of appellate fees or 9 || cancellation of indebtedness for unpaid appellate fees after they withdrew their appeals)). In fact, 10 || “[a] congressional objective in enacting the PLRA was to ‘mak[e] all prisoners seeking to bring 11 || lawsuits or appeals feel the deterrent effect created by liability for filing fees.’ ” Goins, 241 F.3d at 12 261. Thus, the filing fee is owed upon initiation of an action, and the obligation to pay the filing □□□□ 13 || not predicated upon the guarantee of some particular outcome within a particular time frame. Plaintif 14 || filed this action, triggering the obligation to pay a filing fee, and Plaintiff is not entitled to a refund 15 || because it did not proceed past screening or as he may have envisioned. 16 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court 17 || has conducted ade novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finc 18 || the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 27, 2021 (ECF No. 11) are 21 adopted; and 22 2. The instant action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 23 24 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: _ September 22, 2021 — SK hE SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28