Dearwester v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 33 Motion for Relief from Filing Fees signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/29/2021. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.

15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
FILING FEES
(ECF No. 33.)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

1:15-cv-00415-GSA-PC

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22

Frank Lee Dearwester (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

23

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 13, 2016, this case

24

was dismissed for failure to state a claim, judgment was entered, and the case was closed. (ECF

25

No. 31, 32.)

26

On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the filing fees under the Prisoner

27

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff moves to modify the collection of filing

28

fees from his inmate trust account.
1

1

Pursuant to the PLRA, a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the full

2

filing fee when bringing a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). After collection of an initial

3

filing fee, the prisoner is statutorily obligated, when funds exist, to make “monthly payments of

4

20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited” to the prisoner’s inmate trust account. Id.

5

§ 1915(b)(2). These payments are collected and forwarded by the agency having custody of the

6

prisoner to the Clerk of the Court.

7

Plaintiff currently works for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

8

at Mule Creek State Prison producing reusable fabric face masks that are in demand due to the

9

Covid-19 pandemic. Plaintiff works full time, seven days per week, for up to ten hours per day.

10

He currently earns $.50 (fifty cents) per hour.

11

Plaintiff filed several civil rights cases in multiple courts and was granted leave to proceed

12

in forma pauperis. Fifty-five percent of Plaintiff’s wages are deducted for court-ordered

13

restitution. Plaintiff’s understanding was that 20 percent of his wages would be deducted for

14

filing fees in addition to the 55 percent for restitution. He was not aware until he became

15

employed that filing fees from multiple cases would “stack up” instead of being taken

16

sequentially. (ECF No. 33 at 2:20.) CDCR deducts 20 percent from Plaintiff’s wages for each

17

of the cases in which fees are owed, depleting Plaintiff’s funds to no more than $10.00 per month.

18

Plaintiff would like to purchase supplemental food and coffee to help fuel his extra work hours.

19

Plaintiff requests the court to limit the number of deductions per month from his wages to 20

20

percent total beyond the 55 percent for restitution.

21

The United States Supreme Court has held that § 1915(b)(2) “calls for ‘monthly payments

22

of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income’ simultaneously for each action pursued” rather

23

than payments of 20 percent collected sequentially for each action. Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S.

24

82, 90 (2016) (emphasis added). In Bruce, the Supreme Court expressly rejected Plaintiff’s

25

argument and approved “a per-case approach under which a prisoner would pay 20 percent of

26

his monthly income for each case he has filed.” Id. at 84 (emphasis added). Accordingly,

27

Plaintiff has no grounds for relief.

28

///
2

1
2

Therefore, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the collection of filing
fees from his inmate trust account, filed on May 8, 2020, (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 29, 2021

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3