(PC) Williams v. Jalijali ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE E. WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00605-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 13 v. DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REVOKE IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT, 14 JEHOSHUA JALIJALI, et al., AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REFER CASE TO THE COURT’S ADR 15 Defendants. PROJECT 16 ECF Nos. 17, 19, & 25 17 18 Plaintiff commenced this action on April 6, 2022, while he was incarcerated at Folsom 19 State Prison. ECF No. 1. On April 28, 2022, I granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis and found that he alleged viable Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against 21 defendants Jalijali and LaCroix and a viable First Amendment retaliation claim against Jalijali. 22 ECF No. 7. 23 Defendants subsequently filed a motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, 24 arguing this his release from custody made his in forma pauperis status under § 1915(b) 25 inapplicable. ECF No. 19. Defendants assert that plaintiff must file a new application to proceed 26 in forma pauperis under § 1915(a)(1). Id. 27 When a plaintiff is released from custody, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)’s fee collection provision 28 is unenforceable. Townsend v. Rendon, No. 1:21-cv-01120-DAD-SAB (PC), 2022 WL 1462181, 1 | at *2(E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2022). Accordingly, a released prisoner-plaintiff must submit an updated 2 | in forma pauperis affidavit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) or pay the filing fee. Id.; Adler v. 3 | Gonzalez, No. 1:11-cv-1915-LJO-MJS (PC), 2015 WL 4041772, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2015). 4 | After defendants filed their motion, plaintiff filed an application seeking leave to proceed in 5 | forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 6 | §1915(a)(1) and (2). ECF No. 25. Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis 1 7 | granted and defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is denied as moot. 8 Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that this case be referred to the court’s Alternative 9 | Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) Project, which defendants oppose. ECF Nos. 17, 20. At this 10 | juncture, a settlement conference would likely be unproductive and waste scarce judicial 11 || resources. Accordingly, plaintiffs request to refer this case to the court’s ADR Project, ECF No. 12 | 17, 1s denied at this time. 13 If, after the parties have completed discovery, plaintiff still believes that a settlement 14 | conference would be beneficial, he may renew his request to set a settlement conference. 15 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff's request for this matter to be referred to the court’s ADR Project, ECF No. 17 17, is denied at this time. 18 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 25, is granted. 19 3. Defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiffs in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 19, is 20 || denied as moot. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ( q oy — Dated: _ November 27, 2022 Q_-——_ 24 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28