Serrano v. Rawers et al

Filing 18

ORDER Denying Motion To Remove Filing Fee From Plaintiff's Prisoner Trust Fund Account (ECF Nos. 10 & 16 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/22/2013. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSIE L. SERRANO, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. SCOTT RAWERS, et al., CASE No. 1:11-cv-00399-MJS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMOVE FILING FEE FROM PLAINTIFF‟S PRISONER TRUST FUND ACCOUNT (ECF Nos. 10 & 16) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jessie L. Serrano is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 9, 2011, 19 the Court issued an order severing Plaintiff‟s claims from an initial lawsuit filed on behalf 20 of Plaintiff and other prisoners. Plaintiff was instructed to file an amended complaint 21 solely asserting violations of his own constitutional rights and, if necessary, to complete 22 an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Instructions attached to the 23 March 9, 2011 order notified Plaintiff that would be obligated to pay the $350.00 filing 24 fee, regardless of his financial status or whether he succeeded in the case. The order 25 also explained the process by which the Court would draw from Plaintiff‟s prisoner trust 26 account should he be unable to pay the filling fee in full when the action is filed. (Id.) 27 On April 14, 2011, Plaintiff submitted his application to proceed in forma pauperis 28 and authorized the Court to collect funds from his prisoner trust account in order to 1 1 satisfy the filing fee. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff has since filed two motions, one on April 12, 2 2013 (ECF No. 10) and another on September 23, 2013 (ECF No. 16), respectively, 3 requesting that the Court remove the filing fee charge from his prisoner trust account. 4 “Filing fees are part of the costs of litigation.” Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 5 775 (7th Cir. 1998). “Prisoner cases are no exception. The Prison Litigation Reform Act 6 has no provision for return of fees that are partially paid or for cancellation of the 7 remaining fee.” Slaughter v. Carey, 2007 WL 1865501, *2 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2007) 8 (citing Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260, 261-62 (2d Cir. 2001) (inmates who proceeded 9 pro se and in forma pauperis were not entitled to refund of appellate fees or to 10 cancellation of indebtedness for unpaid appellate fees after they withdrew their 11 appeals)). In fact, “[a] congressional objective in enacting the PLRA was to „mak[e] all 12 prisoners seeking to bring lawsuits or appeals feel the deterrent effect created by liability 13 for filing fees.‟” Goins, 241 F.3d at 261. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s motions to remove the 14 filing fee from his prisoner trust account are DENIED. 15 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 22, 2013 /s/ 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END: 21 Michael J. Seng ci4d6 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?