Springfield v. Fiber et al

Filing 47

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/25/2022 CONSTRUING 44 Order as Findings and Recommendations and 45 Motion as Objections. 43 Motion for a Rebate is DENIED, and 45 Objections are OVERRULED.(Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Ciron B. Springfield,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-01063-KJM-DMC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
C. Fiber, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Ciron B. Springfield moves for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order

19

denying his request to reimburse the filing fee he paid to pursue an appeal in this action. See Mot.

20

Reimburse, ECF No. 43; Order, ECF No. 44; Mot. Recons., ECF No. 45. Because this action has

21

been settled and is closed, and because Mr. Springfield seeks post-judgment relief, the court

22

construes the Magistrate Judge’s order as findings and recommendations and Mr. Springfield’s

23

motion as objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B); E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). The court

24

has considered Mr. Springfield’s motion and the record de novo.

25

The court may assume without deciding that it has authority to consider a motion to

26

reimburse a filing fee paid to begin an appeal. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that

27

28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires incarcerated plaintiffs who bring civil actions or file appeals in forma

28

pauperis “to pay the full amount of a filing fee” notwithstanding this court’s power to “authorize
1

1

the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without

2

prepayment of fees.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (b)(1). The motion for a rebate is denied, and

3

the objections to the Magistrate Judge’s decision are overruled.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 25, 2022.

6

2