(PC) Wren v. Mail Room Trust Staff ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY CHARLES WREN, No. 1:21-cv-01486-NONE-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 14 MAIL ROOM TRUST STAFF, et al., FEE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 13) 16 17 Plaintiff Jeffrey Charles Wren is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On October 7, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 20 recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that 21 plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee in full to proceed with this action because he is able to 22 afford the costs of this action. (Doc. No. 8.) Plaintiff filed objections stating that he pre-paid for 23 eight civil rights actions, and appeared to indicate that he has funds deposited with the court and 24 he would like a portion of those funds to be withdrawn to pay the filing fee for this action. (Doc. 25 No. 13.) 26 On November 2, 2021, the undersigned issued an order adopting the findings and 27 recommendations in full and ordering plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full within twenty- 28 one (21) days. (Doc. No. 13.) As plaintiff had not attached receipts or other proof that any funds 1 had been deposited with the court, plaintiff was informed that he could pay the filing fee for this 2 action using funds from his inmate trust account or using funds from those deposited with the 3 court, if any exist. In that order, plaintiff was also warned that failure to pay the filing fee within 4 the specified time would result in dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2.) 5 On November 10, 2021, plaintiff filed a document titled “Cancel – Dismiss – Terminate 6 Case.” (Doc. No. 14.) As it was unclear based on the content of the filing whether plaintiff 7 intended to voluntarily dismiss this action or whether plaintiff was seeking some other form of 8 relief, the magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to clarify his intent. (Doc. No. 15.) Thereafter, 9 plaintiff filed a response in the form of a letter to the Clerk of the Court that appeared to indicate 10 plaintiff’s belief that he had pre-paid for the filing fee in this action, (Doc. No. 16), an argument 11 already rejected by the undersigned. 12 On December 1, 2021, plaintiff submitted an additional response that appeared to indicate 13 his refusal to pay the filing fee for this suit, his disagreement with the existence of a filing fee 14 requirement for section 1983 actions, and again raised the argument that he already pre-paid for 15 eight civil rights actions. (Doc. No. 17, p. 2.) 16 The court has already rejected plaintiff’s arguments regarding the alleged pre-payment of 17 filing fees, and plaintiff’s responses have not provided any additional proof that any funds have 18 been deposited with the court. Plaintiff’s argument that there is no requirement to pay a filing fee 19 for a civil rights action is without merit. Finally, based on plaintiff’s apparent indication that he 20 refuses to pay the filing fee for this action, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to obey the 21 court’s order and pay the appropriate filing fee, and this case cannot proceed. This matter will be 22 dismissed. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992). 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for plaintiffs failure to comply with the 3 court’s order of November 2, 2021, (Doc. No. 13), and his failure to pay the filing fee; and 4 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, assign a district judge 5 to this case for the purpose of closing the case, and then to close this case. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ 4 3 | Dated: _ January 5, 2022 LL 1 Yrod 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28