(PC) Rodriguez v. Cate et al

Filing 31

ORDER DISCHARGING 28 Order to Show Cause; ORDER DENYING 29 Plaintiff's Motion for 60 Day Extension of Time Within Which to Pay Filing Fee as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/29/2022. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERICK EDDIE RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. CATE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:21-cv-00898-DAD-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 28)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR 60 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME
WITHIN WHICH TO PAY FILING FEE AS
MOOT (Doc. 29)

16
17
Plaintiff Erick Eddie Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

18
19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

On August 23, 2021, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to Deny

22

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 21.) Following subsequent re-service by

23

mail to a temporary address,1 Plaintiff filed objections on October 19, 2021. (Doc. 22.) On

24

October 27, 2021, District Judge Dale A. Drozd adopted the Findings and Recommendations in

25

full. (Doc. 23.) Judge Drozd denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered

26

that Plaintiff pay the $402 filing fee within 90 days. (Id. at 2.)

27
1

28

On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document indicating a temporary change of address to the Los Angeles County
Jail. (Doc. 18.) On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff advised he had been transferred back to High Desert State Prison in
Susanville, California. (Doc. 25.)

1

After more than 90 days had passed, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why

2

Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Pay the Filing Fee (“OSC”). (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff

3

was given 21 days within which to file a reply to the OSC.

4
5

On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC (Doc. 30) and a request for an
extension of time of 60 days within which to pay the filing fee (Doc. 29).

6

On March 29, 2022, Plaintiff paid the $402 filing fee.

7

II.

8

In an unsigned and undated response to the OSC, Plaintiff indicates a willingness to pay

9

DISCUSSION

the $402 filing fee as previously ordered but indicated an extension of time would be needed.

10

(Doc. 30 at 1.) In a motion or request filed on that same date, Plaintiff asks2 for “an additional 45

11

to 60 days extension of time to pay for the filing fees of $402.” (Doc. 29 at 1.)

12

The undersigned was prepared to grant Plaintiff a final 60-day extension of time within

13

which to pay the $402 filing fee. However, before an Order could be completed and signed, a

14

docket entry dated March 29, 2022, reveals the filing fee has now been paid in full:

15

RECEIPT number#CAE100050269 $402 fbo Erick E. Rodriguez
P66561 by State of California on 3/29/2022.

16
17

(Docket Entry dated 3/29/2022, Case #1:21-cv-00898-DAD-SKO.)

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25
2

26
27
28

Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider its earlier denial of his application for leave to a proceed in forma
pauperis and references a lack of a response from the Court to his “objection letter.” (Doc. 29 at 1.) The Court did
respond to Plaintiff’s objections when it acknowledged receipt and consideration of those same objections in its
Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations dated October 26, 2021. (See Doc. 23 at 1 [“Plaintiff filed
objections on October 19, 2021”], 2 [“Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections …”].)
Plaintiff’s application was denied by the undersigned magistrate judge and then adopted by assigned District Judge
Dale A. Drozd. The Court’s ruling denying IFP status is now final.
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

2

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that:

3

1. The OSC issued March 14, 2022, is DISCHARGED; and

4

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time within which to pay the filing fee (Doc. 29)
is DENIED as MOOT in light of Plaintiff’s payment of the filing fee of $402 in full.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

March 29, 2022

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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