Jason Allan Singer v. Matthew Braman ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 1:17-cv-00725-DAD-EPG 11 JASON ALLAN SINGER, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 SUSPEND REMAINING FILING FEE Plaintiff, BALANCE 13 v. (ECF No. 22) 14 MATTHEW BRAMAN, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jason Allan Singer, appearing pro se, filed a complaint on May 18, 2017, 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations against Defendants Downtowner 19 Inn; Matthew Braman, the night manager of the Downtowner Inn; Sandy Cartwright, the night 20 clerk at the Downtowner Inn; and Stephany Munoz, a room cleaner at the Downtowner Inn. 21 Plaintiff generally alleged that Defendants conspired with the Bakersfield Police Department to 22 violate his rights. 23 On May 31, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 24 pauperis, directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to send 25 payments in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income credited to 26 Plaintiff’s prison trust account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account 27 exceeded $10.00 until the statutory filing fee of $350 was paid in full under 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915(b)(2). (ECF No. 10). 1 On March 23, 2018, the assigned District Judge adopted the Court’s recommendation to 2 || dismiss the case due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to 3 comply with the Court’s orders. (ECF Nos. 19, 20). Judgment was entered the same day against 4 || Plaintiff, and the case was closed. (ECF No. 21). 5 Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion, filed on November 18, 2022, to suspend the 6 || remaining balance of his filing fee, which he says has “continued to be a burden and undue 7 || hardship by taking 20% of [his] meager wages earned . . . in prison.” (ECF No. 22, p. 2) 8 || (capitalization omitted). Plaintiff cites no authority permitting the Court to reopen his case after 9 || approximately four-and-a-half years to suspend his payment of the filing fee required under 10 § 1915. And the Court notes that “Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not provide any authority or 11 mechanism for the Court to reduce or waive the payment of Plaintiff’s filing fee, suspend 12 || collection of the filing fee, or to reimburse any payments already made.” Bowersock v. Kernan, 13 || No. 1:18-CV-01040-BAM (PC), 2018 WL 5304810, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2018). 14 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to suspend the remainder of his 15 || filing fee balance (ECF No. 22) is denied. This case remains closed. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: □ November 21, 2022 [sf ey 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28