White v. Sherman et al

Filing 19

ORDER regarding Filing Fee signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 9/14/15. (Motion for IFP or Filing Fee due by 10/23/2015).(Lundstrom, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DE’WANN WHITE,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01971-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: FILING FEE
vs.
STU SHERMAN, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 18 Plaintiff De’Wann White, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
his Second Amended Complaint with leave of Court. White’s Complaint arises out of his
incarceration at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran, California.
At the time White filed his Complaint and First Amended Complaint White was incarcerated
at the Los Angeles County State Prison, Lancaster, California. White’s current address is
a private residence located at 11356 Farmers Court, Bloomington, California 92316.
Therefore, White is no longer a state prisoner within the context of the statute permitting
prisoners to proceed In forma paupers (“IFP”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
With respect to waiver of a filing fee by a person proceeding IFP, it is unclear from
the language of § 1915 whether it extends to filings by non-prisoners. The Ninth Circuit
has not specifically ruled on this question, and the other circuits are split on the issue.1 In

1

Compare Gay v. Texas Dep’t of Corr., 117 F.3d 240, 241–42 (5th Cir. 1997), In
re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247, 1251–52 (D.C. Cir. 1997), and Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895,
(continued...)
ORDER RE: FILING FEE
White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 1

the absence of controlling authority, this Court adopts the reasoning of its sister districts,
the District of Nevada and the Southern District of California, that allowing a non-prisoner
litigant to proceed IFP is within the sound discretion of the district court.2
Accordingly, in the interests justice the Court will grant White through and including
October 23, 2015, within which he must either pay the filing fee or, alternatively, file a
supplemental application to proceed in forma pauperis. In the event White does not
comply with this order within the time specified, or such additional time as the court
may allow, this matter may be dismissed without further notice to him.
If Plaintiff elects to file a supplemental Motion to Proceed IFP, he is cautioned that
he will still be required to pay the full $350 civil filing fee, but pursuant to a partial
installment payment plan devised by the Court dependent on his income, as funds are
available, and regardless of whether his case is subsequently dismissed sua sponte
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or for any other reason.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of September, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

(...continued)
897–99 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that § 1915(b)(1) requires payment in full) with Brown v.
Eppler, 725 F.3d 1221, 1231 n. 7 (10th Cir. 2013), DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 315 F.3d 396, 397
(4th Cir. 2010), In re Prison Lit. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138–39 (6th Cir. 1997), and
McCann v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 96 F.3d 28, 29–30 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding that after
release a prisoner is not required to pay the full amount of the filing fee, but may continue
to make partial payments to the extent of his/her ability).
2

Putzer v. Attal, 2013 WL 4519351 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2013) (unpublished slip op.);
Turner v. San Diego County, 2014 WL 5800595 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2014) (unpublished slip
op.).
ORDER RE: FILING FEE
White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 2