(PC) Hamilton v. Wong ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 David Hamilton, No. 2:19-cv-01181-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Sam Wong, et. al., 1S Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 | under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 15. On June 22, 2020, the court 19 | dismissed this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Prior Order, 20 | ECF No. 20. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s dismissal. See USCA Mandate, ECF No. 28. 21 Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled “Notice of Motion for Modification of Sentence to 22 | Vacate Judgement of Court-Imposed Costs (Fines and Restitution) (Pen. Code § 1465.9).” Mot. 23 | at 1, ECF No. 29 (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff argues California Penal Code section 1465.9 has 24 | been amended to render court-imposed costs “unenforceable and uncollectible.” /d. at 3. 25 | Therefore, he requests all court-imposed costs to be vacated. Jd. at 6.! ‘Tn the motion, plaintiff identifies himself as the defendant, see e.g., id. at 1, 6, and appears to use a boilerplate form created for defendants requesting relief in state court, as the heading includes “People of the State of California,” id. at 1. 1 California Penal Code section 1465.9 provides the balance of any court-imposed costs and 2 | civil assessments “pursuant to” other provisions of the Code are unenforceable and uncollectible. 3 | See Cal. Penal Code § 1465.9. This statute has no bearing on whether a federal court may collect 4 | the filing fee associated with the filing of a civil complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“The clerk of 5 | each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such 6 | court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350[.]”); cf 7 | Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Courts have discretion to impose partial 8 | filing fees under the in forma pauperis statute.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (proceedings in forma 9 | pauperis). Therefore, the motion is denied. 10 This order resolves ECF No. 29. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: May 8, 2024. / / 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45