- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERDINAND REYNOLDS, Case No. 2:95-cv-01451-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BE EXCUSED FROM PAYING THE 13 v. FILING FEE 14 THEODORE WHITE, et al., ECF No. 279 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, commenced 18 this action in 1995. ECF No. 1. In 2001, plaintiff’s claims were dismissed following a bench 19 trial, and judgment was entered accordingly. ECF Nos. 199 & 200. The Ninth Circuit 20 subsequently vacated the judgment and remanded the case to determine whether plaintiff waived 21 his right to a jury trial. ECF No. 218. In August 2007, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, 22 the court reinstated the March 2001 judgment. ECF Nos. 261 & 262. 23 Approximately twelve years later, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that he be excused 24 from paying the outstanding balance of the filing fee due to “financial strain.”1 ECF No. 279. 25 The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that all prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis pay the 26 full amount of the filing fee, although payments can be made in increments. Williams v. Paramo, 27 1 This case was recently reassigned to the undersigned and District Judge John. A. 28 Mendez. ECF No. 280. 1 | 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 2 | 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Under the PLRA, all prisoners who file IFP civil actions 3 | must pay the full amount of the filing fee.”’). 4 Accordingly, plaintiff remains obligated to pay the entire filing fee, and his motion, ECF 5 | No. 279, is denied. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 29, 2021 Q_——. 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:95-cv-01451
Filed Date: 9/30/2021
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/19/2024