From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. Castillo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 16, 2023
1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2023)

Opinion

1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO (PC)

08-16-2023

TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. A. CASTILLO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. 10)

SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington initiated this action with the filing of his complaint on July 14, 2023. (Doc. 1.) That same date, he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.)

On July 24, 2023, this Court issued its Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 10.) The Court found Plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the filing fee for this action because the balance in his inmate trust account on July 24, 2023, was $6,687.21. (Id. at 2.) The Court recommended Plaintiff's IFP motion be denied and that he be ordered to pay the $402 filing fee. (Id. at 2-3.) Any objections to the Court's findings were to be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Id. at 3.)

On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice To The Court That Plaintiff Had Initiated The Process Of Paying The Full Filing Fee.” (Doc. 12.)

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff states he “initiated the process of payment in full of $402” by submitting the required paperwork for payment of the filing fee in this action. (Doc. 12.) He states he “always intended to pay the full filing fee” and was “only complying with the instructions in the 42 USC Sec. 1983 Prisoners Civil Rights Complaint packet.” (Id.) Plaintiff notes he initiated the payment of the required filing fee from his inmate trust account before receiving notice that this action, originally filed in the Sacramento division, was being transferred to the Fresno division. (Id.) He “hopes that the funds are re-directed to the new court and case number.” (Id.)

The Court's docket reflects the receipt of $402.00 on August 3, 2023. (See Docket Entry dated 8/3/2023 [“RECEIPT number 200002289].)

Because Plaintiff has paid the required $402 filing fee for this action, the Court will vacate its findings and recommendations to dismiss this action.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 10), issued July 24, 2023, are VACATED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to indicate Plaintiff's IFP motion (Doc. 2) has been resolved considering Plaintiff's payment of the required filing fee; and

3. Plaintiff is ADVISED his complaint will be screened, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Washington v. Castillo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 16, 2023
1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2023)
Case details for

Washington v. Castillo

Case Details

Full title:TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. A. CASTILLO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 16, 2023

Citations

1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2023)