(PC)Mize v. Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BRANDEN SCOTT MIZE, Case No. 1:22-cv-01322-HBK (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 RENEWED MOTION TO PROCEED IN v. FORMA PAUPERIS AND REASSESSING 13 FULL FILING FEE D. LLOYD, AYON, and D. HOUBEIN, 14 (Doc. No. 29) Defendants. 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis 18 (“IFP”) filed on October 30, 2023. (Doc. No. 29). Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, initiated this 19 action while he was incarcerated. (Doc. No. 1). Although currently released, Plaintiff remains 20 obligated to pay the full amount of the statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). As set forth 21 in the Court’s October 12, 2023 Order, the total amount that remains due towards the $350.00 22 filing fee is $243.24. (Doc. No. 28 at 3). Due to Plaintiff’s release from custody, there is no 23 inmate trust account from which periodic filing fees may be garnished and forwarded to the 24 Court. Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to decide how a released prisoner who is obligated to 25 “pay the full amount of a filing fee” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) may proceed IFP after he is 26 released, “the Ninth Circuit [did note] ‘even prior to the PLRA . . . district courts possessed 27 authority under the non-PLRA-related provisions of § 1915 to require partial and/or installment 28 payments.’” Makoni v. Downs, 2016 WL 7210403, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016) (quoting 1 | Putzer v. Attal, 2013 WL 4519351, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2013)) (citing Olivares v. Marshall, 2 | 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995)). 3 Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed IFP makes the showing required to proceed IFP, but 4 | consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full 5 | $243.24 statutory filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Given Plaintiffs current financial 6 | situation, the Court will not impose a monthly installment payment at this time. However, 7 | Plaintiff remains responsible for the remaining $243.24 balance of the $350.00 assessed filing fee 8 | and will be required to notify the Court as soon as his financial situation changes. 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 10 1. Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 29) is GRANTED 11 and the Court reassesses the balance of $243.24 that remains due for the full $350.00 12 filing fee previously assessed. 13 2. Plaintiff shall notify the Court within thirty (30) days of any change in his current 14 financial situation, i.e. if Plaintiff secures employment or is deemed eligible to receive 15 any form of federal or state financial assistance. 16 3. Plaintiffs failure to timely notify the Court of a change in his financial circumstances 17 will result in the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss this action. 18 19 Dated: _ November 28, 2023 law ZA. foareh Zackte 20 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28