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)
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?