1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER RODARTE, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00487-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO PAY THE FILING FEE 13 v. FOR THIS ACTION

14 MERCED COUNTY SHERIFFS (Doc. 12) DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants.

16

17 18 Plaintiff Alexander Rodarte, a former county jail inmate and current state prisoner, is 19 appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

1983. 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 On April 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma 23 pauperis (IFP) in the Sacramento division of the United States District Court for the Eastern 24 District of California. (Docs. 1 & 2.) Following transfer of this action to the Fresno division, an 25 Inmate Statement Report was submitted to the Court on April 28, 2025, by the California Medical 26 Facility regarding Plaintiff’s inmate trust account. (Doc. 6.) 27 On May 5, 2025, the Court issued its Order Directing Plaintiff to Provide Additional Information Concerning His Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner and Inmate 1 Statement Report. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff filed a response to the order on May 22, 2025. (Doc. 10.) 2 On May 27, 2025, the Court issued its Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Response of May 22, 3 2025, and Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 11.) 4 On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Objecting to Pay the Filing Fee of 5 $350.00.” (Doc. 12.) 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Plaintiff states the money he earned “through IHSS” was “money [he] was making before 8 [he] came to jail.” (Doc. 12.) His original response to the Court’s order requiring additional 9 information on Plaintiff’s IFP application was “wrong” because at that time he had “only been in 10 custody about 5 months.” (Id.) Plaintiff asks the Court to excuse his mistake and to “not charge 11 [him] and allow [him] to file forma pauperis without being charged due to its not [his] income the 12 Court is charging [him] for.” (Id.) 13 First, Plaintiff has already been granted IFP status and any mistake he made on his IFP 14 application has already been excused. (See Doc. 11.) Second, it appears Plaintiff believes that 15 once IFP status is granted that means he should not have to pay a filing fee for this action. 16 Plaintiff is mistaken. 17 As explained in the Court’s May 27, 2025, order, when IFP status is granted to a prisoner, 18 a statutory filing fee of $350.00 is assessed pursuant to

(b)(1). The prisoner is 19 then obligated to make monthly payments in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of the preceding 20 month’s income credited to a prisoner’s trust account. Those payments are then forwarded to the 21 Court each time the amount in the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee 22 is paid in full.

(b)(2). IFP status does not allow a prisoner plaintiff to avoid 23 paying any filing fee whatsoever. Rather, the prisoner avoids having to pay the total filing fee in 24 full at the time an action is filed with the Court. In re Smith,

(D.C. Cir. 25 1997) (IFP status merely “defers, but does not permanently excuse, the payment of filing fees”); 26 Lucien v. DeTella,

(7th Cir. 1998) (“All § 1915 has ever done is excuse pre- 27 payment of the docket fees; a litigant remains liable for them, and for other costs, although 1 poverty may make collection impossible”).1 2 Lastly, the Court notes the IFP application that Plaintiff signed on April 17, 2025, 3 specifically “authorized the agency having custody of” Plaintiff “to collect from [his] trust 4 account and forward to the Clerk of the United States District Court payments in accordance with 5

(b)(2).” (See Doc. 2 at 2.) 6 In sum, despite his objections, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the $350 filing fee for 7 this action. Payments will continue to be deducted from Plaintiff’s trust account in accordance 8 with

and this Court’s orders. 9 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 10 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED and 11 his request to avoid payment of the filing fee for this action is DENIED. 12 Plaintiff is advised that no further filings concerning IFP status, or the payment of a filing 13 fee, will be entertained. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

16 Dated: June 18, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17

18 19 20 21

22 1 See also, e.g., Annamalai v. Montgomery County Treasurer, No. 3:24-cv-00268,

, at *5, n.6 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2024) (“A grant of in forma pauperis status to a prisoner does not excuse the 23 prisoner from paying any filing fee, but instead permits periodic partial payments of the fee over time based on collection of amounts held in the prisoner’s account, until such time as the full fee is paid”); 24 James v. U.S. Marshals, No. CV420-111,

, at *1 (S.D. Georgia Jan. 17, 2023) (“IFP status does not afford prisoners the ability to avoid paying filing fees. Rather, IFP status merely allows 25 prisoners to avoid prepaying their filing fees”); Woods v. Rucker, No. 8:18-CV-145 (LEK/CFH),

2172697, at * 1, n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018) (“Plaintiff is advised that bring granted IFP status does not excuse him from paying any costs or fees he may incur in this action. … Moreover, plaintiff is reminded 27 that under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (‘PLRA’), inmate plaintiffs who have been granted IFP status have consented to pay a reduced filing fee of $350 which will be remitted in installments from the inmate's account”).