(PC) Figueras v. Gonzalez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RALEIGH R. FIGUERAS, 1:22-cv-01328-SKO (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 12 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 NANCY GONZALEZ, et al., (Doc. 5) 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Raleigh R. Figueras is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed an application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5.) 20 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United 21 States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only 23 if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 24 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 25 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, “[u]nlike other indigent litigants, prisoners proceeding IFP must 26 pay the full amount of filing fees in civil actions and appeals pursuant to the PLRA [Prison 27 Litigation Reform Act].” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 886 (9th Cir. 2002). 28 As defined by the PLRA, a “prisoner” is “any person incarcerated or detained in any 1 facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of 2 criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary 3 program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h). A person detained and subject to removal or deportation, 4 however, is not a “prisoner” under § 1915(h). Agyeman, 296 F.3d at 886; Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 5 680, 682-83 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that a detainee of the Immigration and Naturalization 6 Service is not a prisoner for purposes of the PLRA filing fee provision); cf. Andrews v. King, 398 7 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005) (“civil detainee” is not a “prisoner” within the meaning of the 8 PLRA); see also Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000) (person confined under 9 California's Sexually Violent Predator Act [“SVPA”], while a “a ‘prisoner’ within the meaning of 10 the PLRA when he served time for his conviction, ... ceased being a ‘prisoner’ when he was 11 released from the custody of the Department of Corrections.”); Mullen v. Surtshin, 590 F. Supp. 12 2d 1233, 1240 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (holding plaintiff “adjudicated NGI [not guilty by reason of 13 insanity] and committed to [Napa State Hospital] as a result of that adjudication” was “not a 14 prisoner as defined by the PLRA”). 15 Because it appears Plaintiff is currently detained by United States Immigration Customs 16 and Enforcement (ICE) pending removal, he does not qualify as a “prisoner” as defined by 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915(h), and the filing fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) do not appear applicable to 18 this case. Agyeman, 296 F.3d at 886. Therefore, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application, 19 which includes an account summary statement for Plaintiff’s verified detainee account, and an 20 account history, just as it would for any other non-prisoner litigant seeking IFP status. The Court 21 finds that documentation sufficient to show that Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees required to 22 maintain a civil action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 23 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: November 15, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28