(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)

Download PDF
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

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?