(PC) Carter-Maddox v. California Substance Abuse Treatment and Facility et al

Filing 14

ORDER Directing Return of Filing Fee to Plaintiff signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/27/2024. (Lawrence, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH REAGAN CARTER-MADDOX, 12 No. 1:23-cv-01632 KES GSA (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER DIRECTING RETURN OF FILING FEE TO PLAINTIFF CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AND FACILITY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff has also 20 paid the filing fee in full. Findings and recommendations regarding the dismissal of this case for 21 failure to exhaust are currently pending. See ECF No. 8. For the reasons stated below the Court 22 will order that Plaintiff’s filing fee be returned to him in its entirety. 23 I. RELEVANT FACTS 24 On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint and application to proceed in 25 forma pauperis.1 See ECF No. 1 at 5 (signature date of complaint); ECF No. 2 at 2 (signature 26 27 28 1 The signing date of a pleading is the earliest possible filing date pursuant to the mailbox rule. See Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 769 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating constructive filing date for prisoner giving pleading to prison authorities is date pleading is signed); Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 1 1 date of in forma pauperis application). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s six-month prison trust fund 2 account statement was filed. ECF No. 5. On November 30, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s in 3 forma pauperis application. ECF No. 6. Despite this fact, however, on March 8, 2024, Plaintiff 4 paid the filing fee in full. 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 Given that Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status back in November 2023, the 7 filing fee that he recently paid in March 2024, in full, was not necessary. Therefore, the Court 8 will order that the $350.00 filing fee be returned to Plaintiff in its entirety. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court and the Financial 10 Department shall work together to RETURN to Plaintiff in its entirety the $350.00 filing fee he 11 unnecessarily paid, the receipt of which was recorded on the Court’s docket on March 8, 2024. 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 27, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?