Garcia v. Folks et al
Filing
173
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/29/2022 DENYING 172 Motion to Clear Fess without prejudice. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RAUL GARCIA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
F. FOLKS, et al.,
15
No. 2:14-cv-2378 JAM DB P
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 5, 2020, the parties in this action participated in a settlement conference. (ECF
20
No. 169.) During the settlement conference the parties agreed to a settlement. The terms of the
21
agreement were put on the record. Thereafter, the parties submitted a stipulation for voluntary
22
dismissal and this case was closed. (ECF Nos. 170, 171.) Plaintiff has now filed a motion “to
23
clear court fees.” (ECF No. 172.) Defendants have not responded to plaintiff’s motion.
24
Plaintiff states that he agreed to dismiss this action in exchange for a monetary settlement.
25
(ECF No. 172.) He alleges that his inmate trust account states that he still owes $259.57 of the
26
$350.00 filing fee associated with this case. (Id.) He states that he thought his court fees should
27
have been paid as part of the settlement agreement. He requests that the undersigned call the
28
institution where is presently incarcerated and “fix it on [his] account.”
1
Plaintiff has not indicated whether payment of filing fee was included in the settlement
2
agreement. Nor has he included evidence showing that payment of the filing fee was included in
3
the terms of the settlement agreement as set forth on the record. If it was not explicitly stated in
4
the terms of the settlement agreement, defendants are likely not required to pay the balance of the
5
filing fee.
6
Litigants ordinarily are required to pay their own fees, but they may be entitled to recover
7
fees in certain circumstances, provided they were the prevailing party. Klamath Siskiyou
8
Wildlands Center v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 589 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009).
9
The term “prevailing party” “means a party in whose favor a judgment is rendered, regardless of
10
the amount of damages awarded” and “requires the party to have achieved a material alteration in
11
the legal relationship of the parties that is judicially sanctioned.” Id. (citations and quotations
12
omitted). “A plaintiff who prevails through settlement can be considered a ‘prevailing party’
13
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and therefore can be awarded costs from a defendant.” Allen v. Kelley,
14
Nos. C-91-1635-VRW and C-94-4162-VRW, 1995 WL 396860 at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995)
15
(citing Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129 (1980) and Williams v. Alioto, 625 F.2d 845, 848 (9th
16
Cir. 1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 1012 (1981)). Thus, to the extent plaintiff can show that he was
17
the prevailing party defendants may1 be required to pay plaintiff’s costs.
18
Because plaintiff has not shown that payment of the filing fees was included in the terms
19
of the settlement agreement or that he was the prevailing party and the fees requested are
20
reasonable, the court will deny the motion without prejudice to its renewal.
21
////
22
////
23
////
24
1
25
26
27
Some other courts have indicated that a plaintiff may be required to pay the filing fee where
their financial status changes during the course of the litigation. See Wiideman v. Harper, 754
F.Supp. 808, 809 (D. Nev. 1990) (A trial court “may retroactively require plaintiff to pay fees and
costs if his financial situation” improves after he is granted in forma pauperis status.); Williams v.
Marshall, 795 F.Supp. 978, 979 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (“If [pro se prisoner plaintiff] prevails, the filing
fee must be paid out of any monetary recovery.”).
28
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to clear court fees (ECF
2
No. 172) is denied without prejudice.
3
Dated: June 29, 2022
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
DB:12
DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/garc2378.fees
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?