Dearwester v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department et al
Filing
68
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 05/18/2020 DENYING 67 Motion for Relief from Filing Fee. (Tupolo, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
16
17
No. 2:13-cv-2066 MCE DB P
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action that was closed on
18
November 23, 2016. (ECF No. 57.) Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion requesting
19
relief from the filing fee. (ECF No. 67.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny the
20
motion.
21
Plaintiff states that he was granted in forma pauperis status in this action. (ECF No. 67 at
22
1.) He alleges that he is currently working for the Prison Industry Authority (PIA) fabric
23
engineering department at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) making reusable fabric face masks.
24
He further alleges that the masks are in high demand because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due
25
to the high demand he is currently working “seven (7) days per week for up to ten (10) hours per
26
day” and “earns $0.50 (fifty cents) per hour.” (Id. at 1-2.)
27
28
Plaintiff alleges that he is working more hours and “would like to purchase supplemental
food and coffee to help fuel the extra work hours.” (Id. at 2.) He further states that “fifty-five
1
1
percent (55%) of [his] wages are deducted for court-ordered restitution.” Additionally, he owes
2
“multiple partial filing fees from multiple courts.” Therefore, he received no more than $10.00
3
per month. Plaintiff states he was unaware that “partial filing fees would stack up instead of be
4
taken sequentially.” Plaintiff requests the court only deduct one partial payment per month,
5
rather than deduct an amount for each of the cases he has filed. (Id. at 3.)
6
The United States Supreme Court held in Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 631 (2016),
7
the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 1 requires that multiple filing fees should be paid
8
simultaneously rather than sequentially. Accordingly, the court cannot issue an order directing
9
that plaintiff only be required to pay monthly filing fees for one case at a time.
Prisons are constitutionally required to provide inmates with “adequate food, clothing,
10
11
shelter, and medical care.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). To the extent plaintiff
12
claims that he is not receiving enough food, such an allegation could support a § 1983 claim.
13
However, such a claim cannot be pursued in this action which has been closed for more than two
14
years. If plaintiff feels that his rights are being violated, he may exhaust administrative remedies
15
and file a separate civil suit.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for relief from the filing fee (ECF No. 67) is
16
17
denied.
18
Dated: May 18, 2020
19
20
21
22
23
24
DLB:12
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/dear2064.fee
25
26
27
28
1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), “if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma
pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the court is required to assess an initial partial filing
fee and collect subsequent payments on an incremental basis “until the filing fees are paid.” 28
U.S.C. §19195(b)(1), (2).
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?