Harper v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 52

ORDER DENYING 51 Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Fees, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 05/09/2023. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK
KIDWELL,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-00115-JLT-HBK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO VACATE FEES
(Doc. No. 51)

K.T. HUFFAN, ET. AL.,
Defendants.

16

Pending before the Court, in this closed case, is Plaintiff’s “motion to vacate court-

17
18

imposed fines now unenforceable and uncollectable per P.C. § 1465.9” filed on April 25, 2023.

19

(Doc. No. 51). Plaintiff, a prisoner, requests the Court to vacate its order imposing costs/fines as

20

required by Penal Code § 1465.9 because the Court failed to consider Plaintiff’s indigent status.

21

(Id.).

22

The California penal code to which Plaintiff cites involves fines and fees imposed in state

23

criminal cases. This case is neither a state case nor a criminal case. Instead, Plaintiff commenced

24

this action by filing a civil lights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Further,

25

a review of the docket reveals the Court did not impose any fine on Plaintiff. On February 26,

26

2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the full

27

$350.00 filing fee. (Doc. No. 8). To the extent Plaintiff refers to the $350.00 filing fee in this

28

case, that was not a fine or fee imposed on Plaintiff as punishment. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)

1

permits a plaintiff to bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security thereof” if the

2

plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff’s “is unable to pay such fees

3

or give security therefor.” However, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, despite being

4

granted in forma pauperis status, all prisoners must pay the full amount of the fee. Id. 1915(b)(1)

5

(requiring a prisoner-plaintiff proceeding IFP “to pay the full amount of the filing fee.”).

6

Notably, Plaintiff cites no case law supporting his request and the undersigned is unaware of any

7

binding precedent requiring this Court to waive the $350.00 statutory filing fee.

8

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED:

9

Plaintiff’s “motion to vacate court-imposed fines now unenforceable and uncollectable per

10

P.C. § 1465.9” (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED.

11
12
13

Dated:

May 9, 2023
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2