Kevin Tyrone Flemings v. Darrin Bright

N.D. California

Kevin Tyrone Flemings v. Darrin Bright

DecidedJanuary 5, 2026

Docket4:16-cv-06808

StatusUnknown

This text of Kevin Tyrone Flemings v. Darrin Bright (Kevin Tyrone Flemings v. Darrin Bright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kevin Tyrone Flemings v. Darrin Bright, (N.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KEVIN TYRONE FLEMINGS, Case No. 16-cv-06808-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CEASE TRUST DEDUCTIONS; 9 v. DENYING MOTION TO VACATE; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 10 DARRIN BRIGHT, Re: Dkt. Nos. 29, 31 Defendant. 11

12 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action. After he was 13 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Defendant moved to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP 14 status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The motion was granted, leave to proceed in forma pauperis 15 was revoked, and, when Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee by the deadline, the case was dismissed 16 without prejudice. Plaintiff recently filed a motion for an order directing prison officials to cease 17 deductions of his filing fees and motion to vacate the order revoking his IFP status. 18 Because Plaintiff’s IFP status was revoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and this case was 19 dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee, he is not obligated to pay the filing fee. See Meyers v. 20 Birdsong, 83 F.4th 1157, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2023). Under Meyers, no filing fee for this case 21 should be collected, see id., but the court’s financial records indicate that the Clerk has collected a 22 portion of his filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to cease deductions from his trust 23 account for payment of the filing fee for this case is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to refund 24 to Plaintiff any filing fees collected in this case and not to accept any future fee payments for this 25 case. See id. (ordering clerk of the court to return incrementally collected filing fees because, 26 where appellant was found to have “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), fees should not have 27 been collected). Prison officials should not continue to send filing fees to this court for this case. ] Plaintiff has not shown any justification to vacate the order revoking his IFP status. 2 || Accordingly, his motion to vacate is DENIED. 3 This order resolves ECF Nos. 29, 31. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 5, 2026 6

7 VA NM FM Me 8 Umted Statesistrict Judge 9 10 1] as 12

13 «14

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KEVIN TYRONE FLEMINGS, Case No. 16-cv-06808-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CEASE TRUST DEDUCTIONS; 9 v. DENYING MOTION TO VACATE; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 10 DARRIN BRIGHT, Re: Dkt. Nos. 29, 31 Defendant. 11

12 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action. After he was 13 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Defendant moved to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP 14 status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The motion was granted, leave to proceed in forma pauperis 15 was revoked, and, when Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee by the deadline, the case was dismissed 16 without prejudice. Plaintiff recently filed a motion for an order directing prison officials to cease 17 deductions of his filing fees and motion to vacate the order revoking his IFP status. 18 Because Plaintiff’s IFP status was revoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and this case was 19 dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee, he is not obligated to pay the filing fee. See Meyers v. 20 Birdsong, 83 F.4th 1157, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2023). Under Meyers, no filing fee for this case 21 should be collected, see id., but the court’s financial records indicate that the Clerk has collected a 22 portion of his filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to cease deductions from his trust 23 account for payment of the filing fee for this case is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to refund 24 to Plaintiff any filing fees collected in this case and not to accept any future fee payments for this 25 case. See id. (ordering clerk of the court to return incrementally collected filing fees because, 26 where appellant was found to have “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), fees should not have 27 been collected). Prison officials should not continue to send filing fees to this court for this case. ] Plaintiff has not shown any justification to vacate the order revoking his IFP status. 2 || Accordingly, his motion to vacate is DENIED. 3 This order resolves ECF Nos. 29, 31. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 5, 2026 6

7 VA NM FM Me 8 Umted Statesistrict Judge 9 10 1] as 12

13 «14

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kevin Tyrone Flemings v. Darrin Bright, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-tyrone-flemings-v-darrin-bright-cand-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack