Rivera v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 7 Plaintiff's pro se Motion to Stop Payment. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 10/4/2013.(TLB)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ramon Manuel Rivera, 10 11 12 13 No. CV 13-481-PHX-RCB (JFM) Plaintiff, vs. ORDER Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al., Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Ramon Manuel Rivera, who is confined in the Maricopa County Lower 16 Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 28, 2013 Order, the Court granted 18 the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. 19 On June 14, 2013 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stop Payment (Doc. 7). Plaintiff did 20 not file an amended complaint and, on August 20, 2013, the Clerk of Court entered a 21 Judgment of Dismissal for failure to comply with a Court order (Doc. 8). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In his Motion to Stop Payment, Plaintiff asks that the Court issue an order to stop collection of the filing fee for this case. Title 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1) states: [I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court shall assess and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater ofB (A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's account; or (B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the 6Bmonthly period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not provide any authority or mechanism for the Court to waive the payment of Plaintiff’s filing fee, or to return the filing fee after dismissal of an action. It is clear that in amending 28 U.S.C. § 1915 with the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996) (PLRA), Congress intended to provide financial disincentives for prisoners filing lawsuits in forma pauperis. See Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Congress enacted PLRA with the principal purpose of deterring frivolous prisoner litigation by instituting economic costs for prisoners wishing to file civil claims. See, e.g., H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-378, at 166-67 (1995); 141 Cong. Rec. S14626 (daily ed.) (Sept. 29, 1995) (statement of Sen. Dole)”). The decision to file and prosecute this case was made by Plaintiff before he filed this case. Having filed this case, Plaintiff and the Court are both statutorily limited by the strictures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to cease collection of the filing fee in this matter will be denied. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s June 14, 2013 Motion to Stop Payment (Doc. 7) is denied. DATED this 4th day of October, 2013. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?