From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mills v. Jones

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 7, 2022
1:21-cv-01193-DAD-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01193-DAD-HBK (PC)

06-07-2022

THOMAS K. MILLS, Plaintiff, v. I. Z. JONES, J. RIVERA, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NO. 111)

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to reconsider ITS May 26, 2022, Order, (Doc. No. 108) denying Plaintiff's request for a 30-day extension to pay the outstanding $2.00 filing fee. (Doc. No. 111). Plaintiff requests the Court reconsider his request for a 30-day extension to pay his filing fee because he contends the filing fee was paid in-full at $400.00. (Doc. No. 111 at 2). To support his argument, Plaintiff attaches an informational document bearing a revised date of 03/20161 which explains if a prisoner is not afforded in forma pauperis status the filing fee is $400.00. (Doc. No. 111 at 4-6).

Effective December 1, 2020, certain fees in the District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule increased due to an adjustment for inflation. Notably, the general administrative fee for filing a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court will increase from $50 to $52. This fee is in addition to the existing civil filing fee of $350. Therefore, effective December 1, 2020 the total filing fee for filing a new civil case was $402, not $400.

The Court construes the motion as filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time. And, for reasons (1), (2), and (3) set forth above no more than a year after the entry of the order. When filing a motion for reconsideration, the Court's local rules also require a showing of “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j).

Plaintiff has not established a sufficient reason under Rule 60 to warrant reconsideration of the May 26, 2022, Order denying Plaintiff's motion for a further 30-day extension to pay the $2.00 filing fee. The Court incorporates its explanation of the case's procedural history set forth in its April 21, 2022, Order (Doc. No. 84) which addressed Plaintiff's motion to continue the case after paying $350.00 towards his $402.00 filing fee. (Doc. No. 72). The Court previously advised Plaintiff at the outset of this case that the correct filling fee for a civil action is $402.00. (See Doc. No 4-1). Furthermore, as indicated by this case's procedural history set forth in its April 21, 2022, Order (Doc. No. 84), Plaintiff has been on notice that the total filing fee was $402.00 since at least February 11, 2022. (See Doc. No. 66). The Court reiterates, as it did in its previous orders addressing Plaintiff's request for an extension (Doc. Nos. 108, 110), Plaintiff has had ample time to direct correctional officials to pay the remaining $2.00 balance owed toward his filing fee. (See generally docket).

In his motion Plaintiff states, “I'm send [sic] my filing fee to the court, $350.00, $50.00, and $5.00, $405.00.” (Doc. No. 66 at 1). While the correct filing fee is $402.00 not $405.00, Plaintiff would have still paid the filing fee in full and any overpayment would have been reimbursed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 111) is DENIED. The Court thus deems Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 55) submitted and ripe for review and ruling.


Summaries of

Mills v. Jones

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 7, 2022
1:21-cv-01193-DAD-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)
Case details for

Mills v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS K. MILLS, Plaintiff, v. I. Z. JONES, J. RIVERA, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 7, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-01193-DAD-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)