From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Jalijali

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 27, 2022
2:22-cv-00605-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-00605-JDP (PC)

11-27-2022

LANCE E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. JEHOSHUA JALIJALI, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVOKE IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REFER CASE TO THE COURT'S ADR PROJECT ECF NOS. 17, 19, & 25

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff commenced this action on April 6, 2022, while he was incarcerated at Folsom State Prison. ECF No. 1. On April 28, 2022, I granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and found that he alleged viable Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Jalijali and LaCroix and a viable First Amendment retaliation claim against Jalijali. ECF No. 7.

Defendants subsequently filed a motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status, arguing this his release from custody made his in forma pauperis status under § 1915(b) inapplicable. ECF No. 19. Defendants assert that plaintiff must file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915(a)(1). Id.

When a plaintiff is released from custody, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)'s fee collection provision is unenforceable. Townsend v. Rendon, No. 1:21-cv-01120-DAD-SAB (PC), 2022 WL 1462181, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2022). Accordingly, a released prisoner-plaintiff must submit an updated in forma pauperis affidavit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) or pay the filing fee. Id.; Adler v. Gonzalez, No. 1:11-cv-1915-LJO-MJS (PC), 2015 WL 4041772, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2015). After defendants filed their motion, plaintiff filed an application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). ECF No. 25. Accordingly, plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and defendants' motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is denied as moot.

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that this case be referred to the court's Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) Project, which defendants oppose. ECF Nos. 17, 20. At this juncture, a settlement conference would likely be unproductive and waste scarce judicial resources. Accordingly, plaintiff's request to refer this case to the court's ADR Project, ECF No. 17, is denied at this time.

If, after the parties have completed discovery, plaintiff still believes that a settlement conference would be beneficial, he may renew his request to set a settlement conference.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for this matter to be referred to the court's ADR Project, ECF No. 17, is denied at this time.
2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 25, is granted.
3. Defendants' motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 19, is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Williams v. Jalijali

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 27, 2022
2:22-cv-00605-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2022)
Case details for

Williams v. Jalijali

Case Details

Full title:LANCE E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. JEHOSHUA JALIJALI, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 27, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-00605-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2022)