(PC) Hamilton v. Wong et al

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/8/2024 DENYING 29 Motion for Modification of Court Imposed Fees. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

David Hamilton,

12
13
14

No. 2:19-cv-01181-KJM-EFB
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Sam Wong, et. al.,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 15. On June 22, 2020, the court

19

dismissed this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Prior Order,

20

ECF No. 20. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s dismissal. See USCA Mandate, ECF No. 28.

21

Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled “Notice of Motion for Modification of Sentence to

22

Vacate Judgement of Court-Imposed Costs (Fines and Restitution) (Pen. Code § 1465.9).” Mot.

23

at 1, ECF No. 29 (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff argues California Penal Code section 1465.9 has

24

been amended to render court-imposed costs “unenforceable and uncollectible.” Id. at 3.

25

Therefore, he requests all court-imposed costs to be vacated. Id. at 6.1

1

In the motion, plaintiff identifies himself as the defendant, see e.g., id. at 1, 6, and
appears to use a boilerplate form created for defendants requesting relief in state court, as the
heading includes “People of the State of California,” id. at 1.
1

1

California Penal Code section 1465.9 provides the balance of any court-imposed costs and

2

civil assessments “pursuant to” other provisions of the Code are unenforceable and uncollectible.

3

See Cal. Penal Code § 1465.9. This statute has no bearing on whether a federal court may collect

4

the filing fee associated with the filing of a civil complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“The clerk of

5

each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such

6

court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350[.]”); cf.

7

Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Courts have discretion to impose partial

8

filing fees under the in forma pauperis statute.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (proceedings in forma

9

pauperis). Therefore, the motion is denied.

10

This order resolves ECF No. 29.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: May 8, 2024.

13

2