United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2021

Gradford v. United States District Court Eastern District of California

Gradford v. United States District Court Eastern District of California
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided December 7, 2021
Gradford v. United States District Court Eastern District of California

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, Case No. 1:21-cv-01596-NONE-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF 13 v. FROM FILING FEE PAYMENTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Doc. 7) EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.

17 Plaintiff William J. Gradford is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the instant action and two other pending actions be considered as one case for filing fee purposes, such that Plaintiff need only make a single payment for all three cases, rather than having separate deductions from his inmate trust account for each of the cases. (Doc. 7.)

22 Prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis are “required to pay the full amount of a filing fee” of any civil action they initiate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The in forma pauperis statute provides that prisoners “shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee,” and the “court shall assess and … collect … an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent” of the average monthly deposits or average monthly balance in the prisoner’s trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (emphasis added).

27 Additionally, “the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income.” Id. § 1915(b)(2) (emphasis added).

1 Thus, according to the statute, the Court does not have discretion to modify or reduce the filing fee that Plaintiff owes for each of his pending cases. The filing fee obligation and payment amounts are mandatory. See, e.g., Soares v. Paramo, No. 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB, 2018 WL 4 5962728, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2018); Cartwright v. Sparks, No. 1:94-cv-06044-AWI, 2012 WL 394175, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Adams v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff's Office, No. 2:10-cv-01558-PHX-RCB, 2010 WL 4269528, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. 2010). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: December 7, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.