From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramirez v. Perez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 13, 2022
1:22-cv-00564-JLT-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)

Opinion

1:22-cv-00564-JLT-SAB (PC)

06-13-2022

ISRAEL RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. PEREZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REGARDING FILING FEE PAYMENT

(ECF NO. 13)

Plaintiff Israel Ramirez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to vacate the payment of the filing fee, filed June 10, 2022. Although it is difficult to decipher, it appears that Plaintiff is seeking to vacate the order granting his application to proceed in forma pauperis and directing the prison to collect payments from Plaintiff's prison trust account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account.

“Filing fees are part of the costs of litigation, ” and prisoner cases are no exception. Slaughter v. Carey, No. CIVS030851MCEDADP, 2007 WL 1865501, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 1998)). Filing fees for initiating a lawsuit in district court are authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Duclairon v. LGBTQ Cmty. & Grace Cmty. Church Klan, No. 3:18-CV-01095-AC, 2018 WL 5085754, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 17, 2018) citing Green v. Bank of America, No. 2:12-cv-02093-GED-CKD PS, 2012 WL 5032414, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (denying refund of filing fee after pro se plaintiff voluntarily dismissed complaint under Rule 41 (a)). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) has no provision for return of fees that are partially paid or for cancellation of the remaining fee. Slaughter, 2007 WL 1865501, at 1 (citing Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260, 261-62 (2d Cir. 2001) (inmates who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis were not entitled to refund of appellate fees or to cancellation of indebtedness for unpaid appellate fees after they withdrew their appeals)). Plaintiff filed this action, triggering the obligation to pay a filing fee, and Plaintiff's obligation to pay the filing fee cannot be discharged. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to vacate the order directing payment of the filing fee is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Ramirez v. Perez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 13, 2022
1:22-cv-00564-JLT-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)
Case details for

Ramirez v. Perez

Case Details

Full title:ISRAEL RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. PEREZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 13, 2022

Citations

1:22-cv-00564-JLT-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)