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)

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