Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-01784-AWI-BAM (PC)
05-07-2020
SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Plaintiff, v. CLENDENIN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF Nos. 7, 8)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).
On March 5, 2020, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff's second application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied on the basis that Plaintiff is able to afford the costs of this action, and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 8.) The Magistrate Judge found that, based on the information provided by Plaintiff, it appeared that Plaintiff's savings account was only depleted after the filing of this action and the Court's request for clarification of Plaintiff's assets, and therefore Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that prepayment of the filing fee and other fees and costs in this action would be a financial hardship. (Id.) Those Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on March 26, 2020. (ECF No. 9.)
In his objections, Plaintiff states that he will appeal the Court's decision regarding payment of the filing fee unless the Court reconsiders and waives the filing fee. Plaintiff further states that, as a show of good faith, he will provide the Court with a $200.00 initial payment, sent by a separate check, and will pay the second $200.00 payment by April 25, 2020 after his next vocational payment cycle, "for full payment to the Court pending the appeal, and reimbursement." (ECF No. 9, p. 5.) It appears Plaintiff is arguing that he will pay the filing fee, appeal this Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then request reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Court finds Plaintiff's objections unpersuasive. Whether or not Plaintiff decides to appeal this Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiff's objections indicate that he is able to pay the full $400.00 filing fee to proceed with this action. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting that the Court grant him "Pro-Se status," Plaintiff is already proceeding as a pro se litigant, and as such will be afforded the leniency the Court typically grants upon all pro se litigants, regardless of whether they are proceeding in forma pauperis.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, (ECF No. 8), issued on March 5, 2020, are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 7, 2020
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is denied; and
3. Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed without further notice.
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE