Alvarez v. State of California et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/21/18 DENYING 37 Request for court to discontinue court-ordered filing fee payments. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GUSTAVO ALVAREZ,

12

No. 2:14-cv-01181-KJM-EFB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

ORDER

14
15

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, asks this court to discontinue court-ordered

20

filing fee payments still owing from a civil rights case he initiated in 2015. Request, ECF No. 37;

21

ECF No. 27 (judgment entered against plaintiff in Sept. 2016). As explained below, the court

22

DENIES this request. The Inmate Statement Report (“Statement”) plaintiff attached to his

23

request shows that both court-ordered payments plaintiff takes issue with complied with the

24

court’s Payment Order, ECF No. 10.

25

////

26

////

27

////

28
1

1

I.

2

DISCUSSION
In May 2015, soon after plaintiff filed this action, the court ordered that payments

3

be deducted from plaintiff’s prison account and credited towards his $350.00 filing fee. See

4

Payment Order. Specifically, the court ordered the “agency having custody of plaintiff” to deduct

5

from plaintiff’s prison trust account “monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s

6

income credited . . . each time the amount in the account exceeds $10, until the filing fee is paid.”

7

Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff now requests “a court order removing file [sic] fee obligations[.]” Request

8

at 1. He contends his balance has dropped below the $10.00 limit, yet “the prison refuses to

9

remove [the fees] without a court order[.]” Id.

10

Plaintiff attached to his request a one-page copy of his Statement. Id. at 2. The

11

Statement shows plaintiff’s account has twice dropped below $10.00: It dropped to $3.11 on

12

January 1, 2018, and to $8.74 on January 4, 2018. Id. at 2. The Statement also reflects two court-

13

ordered deductions: A $5.88 deduction on January 4, 2018, and a $5.50 deduction on February 5,

14

2018, both labeled “DIRECT ORDER PAYMENT.” Id. On both dates, the deduction was taken

15

while plaintiff’s balance still exceeded $10.00: His balance was $15.20 when the January 4

16

deduction was taken; his balance was $19.74 when the February 5 deduction was taken. Id. That

17

a deduction may, as the January 4 deduction here, bring his balance below $10.00 does not violate

18

the court’s Payment Order, as plaintiff’s account need only have exceeded $10.00 when the

19

deduction was taken. See Payment Order at 10 (“The [prison] is required to forward to the Clerk

20

of the Court . . . payments from plaintiff’s account each time the amount in the account exceeds

21

$10, until the filing fee is paid.”). His account exceeded $10.00 at all relevant times.

22
23
24

II.

CONCLUSION
The court-ordered deductions reflected in plaintiff’s attached Statement comply

with the court’s Payment Order. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

This resolves ECF No. 37.

27

DATED: March 21, 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2