(PC) Littleton v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 3/7/2025 DENYING plaintiff's 22 motion to refund the filing fee, DENYING plaintiff's 23 motion to proceed ifp as unnecessary, and DENYING plaintiff's 24 motion to appoint counsel, as unnecessary. Plaintiff is cautioned that any future documents filed by him in this case will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response. (Deputy Clerk KLY)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL LITTLETON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No. 2:22-cv-0567-TLN-JDP (P)

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

The court closed this action on February 23, 2023, because plaintiff failed to state claim

18

for relief, failed to comply with court orders, and failed to prosecute. ECF No. 19. Now, more

19

than two years later, plaintiff has filed a request to refund his filing fee, ECF No. 22, a new

20

motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 23, and a motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 24.1

21

For the foregoing reasons, each motion is denied, and plaintiff is cautioned that any future

22

documents filed by him in this case will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response.

23

Plaintiff filed an identical motion to refund his filing fee in another closed action in this

24

district. See Littleton v. Montiez, 2:22-cv-1067-TLN-AC. Judge Claire denied that motion. She

25

explained that because plaintiff applied for and was granted to proceed in forma pauperis, he was

26

obligated to pay the $350.00 filing fee. ECF No. 16 at 3. She further explained that 28 U.S.C.

27
28

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 23, is denied as unnecessary.
Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status on October 11, 2022. ECF No. 15.
1

1

§ 1915(b)(2)

2

requires that prisoners who have multiple civil rights lawsuits in
which in forma pauperis status was granted make simultaneous
payments of twenty percent of the prisoner’s monthly income for
each case he has filed. Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 87 (2016).
That the combined amount may add up to more than twenty
percent, and at times, leave a prisoner without funds, does not
violate the statute, and in fact is consistent with the purpose of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act to deter frivolous lawsuits. Id. at 8889.

3
4
5
6
7

Id. I find no reason to depart from the approach taken by Judge Claire. Plaintiff’s motion to

8

appoint counsel is necessarily denied because this case is closed.

9

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

10

1. Plaintiff’s motion to refund the filing fee, ECF No. 22, is denied.

11

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 23, is denied as

12

unnecessary.
3. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 24, is denied as unnecessary.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
Dated:

March 7, 2025

17

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2