(PC) Kidwell v. California Prison Industry Authority ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK Case No. 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC) KIDWELL, aka JASON SCOTT 11 HARPER, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE COURT-IMPOSED FINES 12 Plaintiff, NOW UNENFORCEABLE AND UNCOLLECTABLE PER P.C. § 1465.9 13 v. (ECF No. 81) 14 JEFF BLAZO, 15 Defendant. 16 Sequoyah Deserthawk Kidwell, aka Jason Harper (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner 17 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. 19 On September 11, 2019, Defendant filed a notice of settlement. (ECF No. 71). On 20 October 3, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice. (ECF 21 No. 75). In the stipulation, the parties agreed that each party was responsible for its own 22 litigation costs and attorney’s fees. (Id.). On October 4, 2019, the Court issued an order directing 23 the Clerk of Court to close the case. (ECF No. 76). In that order, the Court noted that the action 24 had been dismissed with prejudice and without an award of costs or attorney’s fees. (Id.). 25 On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate court-imposed fines now 26 unenforceable and uncollectable per P.C. § 1465.9 (ECF No. 81), which is now before the Court. 27 Plaintiff asks the Court to vacate its order imposing costs/fines. Plaintiff argues this is required 28 nee enn nee nnn EOE IIE II OE IEE 1 | by Penal Code § 1465.9. Plaintiff argues that, when imposing the fine on Plaintiff, the Court 2 | failed to give proper consideration to Plaintiff's indigent status. 3 Plaintiff's motion will be denied. Plaintiff cites to the California penal code and cases 4 | involving fines and fees imposed in state criminal cases.' However, this is not a criminal case, 5 | and the Court did not impose a fine or fee on Plaintiff. Additionally, as discussed above, this case 6 || was dismissed without an award of costs or attorney’s fees. To the extent Plaintiff is referring to 7 | the filing fee in this case, that was not a fine or fee imposed on Plaintiff as punishment, it was the 8 | cost of filing this civil case. 9 Moreover, even if the cases cited by Plaintiff applied to filing fees in civil state court 10 | cases, Plaintiff does not cite to any authority, nor is the Court aware of any, suggesting that this 11 | state law controls in this federal case in federal court. And, federal law requires Plaintiff to pay 12 | the filing fee even though he was granted in forma pauperis status. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) 13 | (‘Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma 14 || pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.”). 15 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to vacate 16 || court-imposed fines now unenforceable and uncollectable per P.C. § 1465.9 is DENIED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _ April 26, 2023 [sf hy □ 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | 1 Plaintiff also cites, but does not discuss, Timbs v, Indiana, 203 L. Ed. 2 11, 139 $. Ct. 682 (2019). However, Timbs involved a state forfeiture action and the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause. As discussed 28 | above, the Court did not impose a penalty or fine on Plaintiff in this case.