(PC) Florence v. Kernan

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID FLORENCE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00331-NONE-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S LETTER AS A MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 13 v. FILING FEES KERNAN, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FILING FEES 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 35) 17 Plaintiff David Florence (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 Currently before the Court is a letter from Plaintiff concerning Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the full filing fees to the District Court, filed December 11, 2020. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff states that he has agreed to pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action, and pursuant to Court policy, each month Plaintiff will owe 20 percent of the preceding month’s income towards the balance until the filing fee is paid in full, and the facility will forward payments to the Court any time the amount in his account exceeds $10.00. Plaintiff has filed multiple cases in District Court.

25 Plaintiff’s family sent him $170.00 on November 16, 2020, and Plaintiff expected CDCR to take 20 percent of the court fees, but not all of his money. CDCR took the whole $170.00. Plaintiff contends that CDCR is taking out 20 percent of his deposits for each of the court case filing fees he owes, rather than a total of 20 percent to be sent to the Courts. Plaintiff requests that the Court send the Secretary of CDCR an order clarifying that CDCR should only deduct 20 percent from Plaintiff’s trust account for all of his cases combined, rather than individually. (Id.) The Court construes the letter as a motion for relief from filing fees.

4 Plaintiff is advised that CDCR’s deductions from his inmate trust account were properly made in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82 (2016).

6 In Bruce, the Supreme Court held that “monthly installment payments, like the initial partial payment, are to be assessed on a per-case basis” and that “simultaneous, not sequential, recoupment of multiple filing fees” is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Id. at 85, 87.

9 Therefore, the simultaneous deductions from Plaintiff’s inmate trust account to pay multiple outstanding filing fees were lawful and properly made. No relief from CDCR’s deduction of funds from Plaintiff’s trust account is warranted, and the Court finds it unnecessary to issue any clarifying order to the Secretary of CDCR.

13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 14 1. Plaintiff’s letter concerning the concerning Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the full filing fees 15 to the District Court, (ECF No. 35), is construed as a motion for relief from filing fees; 16 and 17 2. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from filing fees, (ECF No. 35), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: December 16, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE