(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 DENYING MOTION TO DIRECT CDCR SECRETARY TO DEDUCT 20 13 v. PERCENT FROM ALL OF PLAINTIFF’S COURT FEES EQUALLY KERNAN, et al., (ECF No. 41) 15 Defendants.

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.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting an order from the Court directing the Secretary of CDCR to deduct 20 percent from all of Plaintiff’s court fees equally, not individually, filed February 1, 2021. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff argues that when he receives deposits to his trust account, only a total of 20 percent should be deducted from the deposit, which should then be divided equally among the filing fees he owes to various courts. Plaintiff has previously raised this argument before the Court. (ECF No. 35.)

As Plaintiff has been informed, 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 26 (2016). 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.

2 Therefore, the simultaneous deductions from Plaintiff’s inmate trust account to pay multiple outstanding filing fees were lawful and properly made. As such, the Court finds it unnecessary to issue any clarifying order to the Secretary of CDCR.

5 Plaintiff’s misunderstanding of the holding in Bruce is not a reason for him to repeatedly file the same baseless argument regarding his filing fees. CDCR is correctly deducting filing fees from Plaintiff’s trust account in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Further motions raising the same argument will be summarily denied.

9 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion regarding his filing fees, (ECF No. 41), is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: February 1, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE