Gradford v. United States District Court Eastern District of California ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, Case No. 1:21-cv-01596-NONE-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF 13 v. FROM FILING FEE PAYMENTS 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Doc. 7) EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 action. On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the instant action and two 19 other pending actions be considered as one case for filing fee purposes, such that Plaintiff need 20 only make a single payment for all three cases, rather than having separate deductions from his 21 inmate trust account for each of the cases. (Doc. 7.) 22 Prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis are “required to pay the full amount of a filing fee” 23 of any civil action they initiate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The in forma pauperis statute provides that 24 prisoners “shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee,” and the “court shall assess and 25 … collect … an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent” of the average monthly deposits or average 26 monthly balance in the prisoner’s trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (emphasis added). 27 Additionally, “the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income.” Id. § 1915(b)(2) (emphasis added). 1 Thus, according to the statute, the Court does not have discretion to modify or reduce the 2 filing fee that Plaintiff owes for each of his pending cases. The filing fee obligation and payment 3 amounts are mandatory. See, e.g., Soares v. Paramo, No. 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB, 2018 WL 4 5962728, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2018); Cartwright v. Sparks, No. 1:94-cv-06044-AWI, 2012 WL 394175, 5 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Adams v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff's Office, No. 2:10-cv-01558-PHX-RCB, 6 2010 WL 4269528, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. 2010). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: December 7, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:21-cv-01596

Filed Date: 12/7/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2024