Bailey v. Santa Clara County Superior Court

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 52 REQUEST FOR CORRECTION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
Case 4:21-cv-00279-HSG Document 53 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASPER BAILEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 Case No. 21-cv-00279-HSG ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CORRECTION Re: Dkt. No. 52 10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a pro 13 14 se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 25, 2021, the Court dismissed the action as 15 barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 16 16, 18. Plaintiff has appealed the dismissal. Dkt. Nos. 23, 30. Now pending before the Court is 17 Plaintiff’s motion titled “Error for Correction,” wherein he requests that the Court return $505.00 18 to his prison trust account. Dkt. No. 52. Plaintiff correctly notes that, on September 23, 2021, the 19 Court received $350.00 from Plaintiff, Dkt. No. 24, and that, on October 5, 2021, the Court 20 received $155.00 from Plaintiff, Dkt. No. 47 at 2. Plaintiff argues that these monies should be 21 returned to him because they were intended to pay the filing fee for his appeal and incorrectly 22 applied here; and because these monies came from stimulus payments paid to him under the 23 CARES Act which cannot be deducted to satisfy court filing fee obligations.1 Dkt. No. 52 at 1-2. 24 Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. The September 23, 2021 $350.00 payment was properly applied to 25 satisfy Plaintiff’s filing fee obligation for this action.2 The October 5, 2021 $155.00 payment was 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff initiated and authorized these payments. Dkt. Nos. 41, 47. The Court did not deduct these monies from Plaintiff’s account. 2 Because Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, he does not need to pay the $52 administrative fee. Case 4:21-cv-00279-HSG Document 53 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2 1 properly applied as a partial payment to satisfy Plaintiff’s filing fee obligation for his appeal, C 2 No. 21-cv-015786-001. The Court is unaware of any prohibition on applying stimulus funds to 3 satisfy court filing fees. The relevant executive order, Executive Order N-57-20, does not 4 reference court filing fees. 5 This order terminates Dkt. No. 52. This case remains closed.3 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 1/7/2022 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Of the 52 docket entries in this case, 44 are filed by Plaintiff. The majority of these pleadings do not seek court action and only serve to clutter the record. Plaintiff need not and should not file “acknowledgment of receipts” with the Court. These filings clutter the record and delay the Court from ruling upon meritorious motions. Plaintiff is advised to be more judicious in the pleadings he files with the Court. 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?