Van Buren v. Parriott, et al.

Filing 11

ORDER on Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Clarification re: PLRA Fees, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/16/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

IRVIN VAN BUREN,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.
B L PARRIOTT, et al.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00893-EPG (PC)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION RE: PLRA
FEES
(ECF NO. 10)

Defendants.

13
14

On October 23, 2017, Irvin Buren (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for clarification regarding

15

Prison Litigation Reform Act fees. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff states that he settled this case and

16

another, “as a package deal.” While this case has been resolved and closed, he is still being

17

charged the filing fee for this case, which he believes is an error. Plaintiff asks for clarification

18

regarding the filing fee pertaining to this case.

19

While Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4), he is still required to pay

20

the filing fee for this action. 28 U.S.C § 1915(b)(1). The fact that Plaintiff settled this case

21

does not obviate this requirement. The filing fee is collected by the Court as payment for filing

22

the case, and Plaintiff’s case was filed. The subsequent settlement in this case does not change

23

the fact that the case was filed.

24

Accordingly, Plaintiff is still responsible for paying the filing fee for this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

May 16, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
1