(PC) Wilkins v. Gonzalez ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Keenan Wilkins, No. 2:16-cv-00347-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Paul Gonzalez, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action in 2016. Compl., 18 | ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 was 19 | granted, Prior Order, ECF No. 7, and the court ordered an initial partial filing fee be paid from the 20 | plaintiffs prison trust account under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Prior Order, ECF No. 8. The court 21 | further outlined a monthly payment plan to continue until the filing fee was paid in full under 22 | 28 US.C. § 1915(b)(2). Id. 23 This court later revoked plaintiff's IFP status because plaintiff had three “strikes” under 24 | 28 US.C. § 1915(g) and granted plaintiff thirty days to pay the filing fee. See Prior Order, ECF 25 | No. 61. Ultimately, plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, and the court dismissed the action. See 26 | Prior Order, ECF No. 68. Plaintiff later petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus, 27 | which was denied “without prejudice to petitioner seeking whatever relief may be available in the 28 | district court in light of Meyers v. Birdsong, 83 F.4th 1157, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2023).” USCA 1 Order, ECF No. 76. Plaintiff then sought a refund of all fees paid in this action under Rule 60 and 2 the Ninth Circuit’s order. See Prior Mot., ECF No. 77. 3 The court denied plaintiff’s motion without prejudice because plaintiff did not “provide 4 sufficient information or evidence to establish a successful claim for a refund, such as evidence of 5 the funds withdrawn.” See Prior Order at 2, ECF No. 78. Plaintiff then filed his current motion 6 requesting a refund of all fees paid to date and attaching a letter to the Clerk of Court seeking 7 records of the amount the court has collected. See Mot., Ex. A, ECF No. 79. The court has been 8 provided with a copy of records showing plaintiff continues to be charged for the filing fee. 9 In Meyers v. Birdsong, a prisoner appealed the dismissal of his § 1983 action and was 10 granted IFP status. 83 F.4th 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2023). The IFP status was later revoked, 11 because it was found the prisoner was ineligible under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. However, after 12 the dismissal, the prisoner’s trust account continued to be debited under § 1915(b)(2) to satisfy 13 the outstanding balance on the initial filing fee. Id. The prisoner argued because he did not 14 qualify for IFP status under § 1915(g), he could not be subjected to the IFP fee payment scheme 15 in § 1915(b). Id. at 1160. The Ninth Circuit agreed and directed the prisoner’s filing fees be 16 refunded. Id. at 1161. Although Meyers concerned an appeals court fee, the Ninth Circuit’s 17 reasoning applies equally to an initial filing fee, as does the language of § 1915. See 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(b)(1) (referring to “a civil action” and “an appeal” without differentiation). 19 The court thus orders as follows: 20 (1) The court directs the Clerk of Court to refund the total amount of the filing fee 21 collected from plaintiff to date. 22 (2) The court orders the Director of the California Department of Corrections and 23 Rehabilitation or a designee to stop collecting and making payments from 24 plaintiff’s trust account to satisfy the balance of the filing fee in this action. 25 (3) The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Director, 26 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515 S Street, 27 Sacramento, California 95814. 28 ///// ] (4) The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial 2 Department of the court. 3 This order resolves ECF No. 79. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | DATED: January 5, 2024. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE