(PC) Adams v. California Prison Industry Authority ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ADAMS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01901-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO REFUND THE FILING FEE 14 CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously granted his request to proceed in forma pauperis, 19 requiring him to pay the filing fee in monthly installments. ECF No. 8. On April 18, 2022, 20 plaintiff notified the court that he was relocating out of state and requested that this this case to be 21 dismissed. ECF No. 36. He also argues that defendant CalPIA should be responsible for paying 22 the filing fee and that all charges on his trust account for this case be removed. 23 If plaintiff does not want to pursue this action, he can voluntarily dismiss it without 24 prejudice by filing a notice of dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 41(a)(1)(A). However, even if he voluntarily dismisses this action, he must pay the entire filing 26 fee. See Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Under the PLRA, all prisoners 27 who file IFP civil actions must pay the full amount of the filing fee.”); see also 28 U.S.C. 28 §§ 1915(b)(1) & (2). 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss filing fees, ECF No. 36, is denied. 3 2. Plaintiff, if he chooses, may voluntarily dismiss this action by filing a notice of 4 | dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 14, 2022 Q_——_. 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28