Waiton v. Post et al

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO STAY INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE re 10 Request to Stay filed by Thomas David Waiton. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 21, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THOMAS DAVID WAITON, Case No. 13-cv-02439-JST (PR) Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 KERRI POST, et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO STAY INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE Re: Dkt. No. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Sonoma County Main Adult 14 Detention Facility, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 15 27, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court also granted 16 plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and ordered plaintiff to pay 17 an initial partial filing fee of $49.80. The Court ordered that the funds for the remainder of the 18 filing fee will be taken from income to plaintiff's account in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(b)(1). 20 On September 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a letter with the Court in which plaintiff made new 21 allegations and requested that the Court vacate its order of dismissal. On October 4, 2013, the 22 Sonoma County Sheriff's Office sent the Court a letter explaining that plaintiff refused to allow the 23 release of funds from his inmate trust account to the Court. On October 7, 2013, plaintiff filed a 24 request to stay the Court's order directing payment of the filing fee so that he could seek an appeal 25 of the Court's order of dismissal. 26 On October 16, 2013, the Court reopened the action finding that, based on plaintiff's new 27 allegations contained in his September 4, 2013 letter, plaintiff might be able to state a claim for 28 denial of access to the courts. The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. 1 Accordingly, plaintiff's request to stay payment of the filing fee is DENIED. Plaintiff is 2 advised that notwithstanding a prisoner's compliance with the requirements of § 1915(a) and the 3 grant of IFP status, the prisoner is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(b)(1). The Ninth Circuit has held that the filing fee provisions of the Prison Litigation 5 Reform Act (PLRA), which require even indigent prisoners to pay the entire filing fee in 6 installments as funds become available in their trust accounts, do not violate a prisoner's 7 constitutional rights to access the courts or to equal protection. See Taylor v Delatoore, 281 F.3d 8 844, 848-50 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Based on the foregoing, within thirty (30) days of this order, plaintiff must pay the initial partial filing fee of $49.80. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff, the Sonoma County Sheriff's 12 Office, and the Court's financial office. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: October 21, 2013 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?