From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Clark

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 19, 2022
1:22-cv-01219-JLT-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022)

Opinion

1:22-cv-01219-JLT-BAM (PC)

10-19-2022

TYRONE POWELL YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. CLARK, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PA UPERIS BE DENIED

(DOCS. 2, 10)

21-DAY DEADLINE

The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action because he can afford the costs of this action. (Doc. 10.) The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff's available balance was $1,455.11. (Id.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 14 days after service. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff filed objections arguing that the money in his trust account was received from the second distribution of Economic Impact Payments. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff argues that Scholl v. Mnuchin, Case No. 20-cv-05309 made stimulus payments for miscellaneous income exempt from collection payments, including filing fees from the United States District Courts. (Id.)

The Court notes that the October 17, 2022 objections appear to be duplicative of the October 14, 2022 objections, although they are missing several pages. The Court has therefore considered the complete version of the objections filed on October 14, 2022. (Doc. 11.)

Plaintiff's objections are unpersuasive. Plaintiff does not contest that he has sufficient funds to pay the filing fee for this action. Also, his reliance on School is misplaced. Scholl, Case No. 4:20-cv-05309-PJH (N.D. Cal.), did not hold that stimulus payments are exempt from collection for the payment of filing fees. Rather, that case held that stimulus payments could not be withheld from the plaintiffs or any class member on the sole basis of their incarcerated status and issued a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from withholding such benefits from the plaintiffs or any class member on the sole basis of their incarcerated status. Scholl, 494 F.Supp.3d 661 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020) (final judgment entered January 21, 2021, Case No. 4:20-cv-05309-PJH (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 184). Therefore, Plaintiff has not supported his claim that the funds available to him cannot be used to pay his filing fee.

According to 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. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 28, 2022, (Doc. 10), are ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), is DENIED.
3. Within 21 days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the $402.00 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Young v. Clark

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 19, 2022
1:22-cv-01219-JLT-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022)
Case details for

Young v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:TYRONE POWELL YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. CLARK, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 19, 2022

Citations

1:22-cv-01219-JLT-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022)