(PC) Wilkins v. Gonzalez ( 2023 )

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, filed this civil rights action without counsel in February 2016. 18 | This court revoked plaintiff's in forma pauperis (IFP) status on March 14, 2018, and ordered him 19 | to pay a $400.00 filing fee within thirty days. Order, ECF No. 61, at 3. Plaintiff did not pay the 20 | filing fee, nor did he show good cause, and so this action was dismissed. Dismissal Order, ECF 21 | No. 68. Plaintiff subsequently petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus, which was 22 | “denied without prejudice to petitioner seeking whatever relief may be available in the district 23 | court in light of Meyers v. Birdsong, 83 F.4th 1157, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2023).” Ninth Circuit 24 | Order, ECF No. 76. Plaintiff now files this motion for relief under Rule 60 and the Ninth 25 | Circuit’s Order, asking for a “refund of all fees collected in this action as he was not allowed to 26 | proceed IFP and for an order from the court to prison officials to cease collection.” Mot. at 4, 27 | ECF No. 77. 1 In Meyers v. Birdsong, the court held “§ 1915(b) neither permits nor requires the 2 collection of fees from a struck-out prisoner who attempts to file an appeal IFP,” and “directed 3 the Clerk of the District Court to return any fees that it collected on [the court’s] behalf for [the] 4 appeal.” Meyers, 83 F.4th at 1161. Here, plaintiff’s request does not include sufficient 5 information or evidence to establish a successful claim for a refund, such as evidence of the funds 6 withdrawn or subject to future withdrawal from his account or evidence the court has ordered the 7 withdrawal of the funds. See Mot. at 1–6. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. 8 This order resolves ECF No. 77. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: December 7, 2023.