1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ANTHONY DAVIS, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00485-JLT-SKO 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FILED MAY 19, 2025 10 v. (Doc. 7) 11 TUOLUMNE COUNTY JAIL, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff Anthony Davis is a county jail inmate appearing pro se in this civil rights action 15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff filed his complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis on April 28, 18 2025. (Docs. 1& 2.) 19 On May 6, 2025, this Court issued its Order Directing Plaintiff To Provide A Properly 20 Completed Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis By Prisoner, To Include Certification 21 Portion That Is To Be Completed By An Authorized Officer Of The Tuolumne County Jail. (Doc. 22 4.) The Order directed as follows: “Plaintiff SHALL complete a new application form and must 23 ensure the ‘Certificate’ section on page two of the new form is completed, signed, and dated by 24 an ’authorized officer’ of the Tuolumne County Jail, within 21 days of the date of this Order, 25 before returning the properly completed form to the Court for its further consideration.” (Id. at 3, 26 emphasis in original.) 27 On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a completed Consent/Decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form. (Doc. 5 [restricted].) That same date, this case was assigned to District Judge 1 Jennifer L. Thurston. (Doc. 6 [Clerk’s Notice].) 2 On May 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Vacate Void Request.” 3 (Doc. 7.) 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 Plaintiff’s Motion 6 In his motion, Plaintiff contends that pursuant to Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of 7 Evidence, a district court “is required to waive filing fees” so Plaintiff “can access the court for 8 justice is justified by a natural individual right to petition the court without fees,” citing to 9 Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867). (Doc. 7 at 1.) Plaintiff contends this Court must 10 take judicial notice “of precedence under Federal Rules of Evidence 201(b) [‘Bank of Commerce 11 v. Commissioner of Taxes for New York, 2 Black 620 (1863)] requires the Clerk of the Court to 12 waive filing fees to allow the undersigned to access the court.” (Id.) Plaintiff states that “this 13 makes the form that the court claims is required moot.” (Id. at 1-2.) 14 Plaintiff next contends that because “the magistrate judge never received consent from the 15 parties to obtain consent” and that “free access to the courts for relief is constitutional under 1st, 16 5th and 14th amendment, requiring a six month statement to collect filing fees” is 17 unconstitutional and violates section 636(b)(3) Title 28 of the United States Code. (Id. at 2.) 18 Plaintiff “demands that the court proceed forward with [his] constitutional right to petition the 19 court without fees or the inmate statement from the county jail.” (Id.) 20 Analysis 21 The undersigned begins by addressing magistrate judge jurisdiction. “Congress intended 22 magistrates to play an integral and important role in the federal judicial system.” Peretz v. United 23 States, 501 U.S. 923, 928 (1991). The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-39, governs the 24 jurisdiction and authority of federal magistrates. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Act provides that 25 certain matters (for example, non-dispositive pretrial matters) may be referred to a magistrate 26 judge for decision. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Certain other matters (such as case-dispositive 27 motions [for injunctive relief, summary judgment, or failure to state a claim], petitions for writs 1 recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Act also states that a magistrate judge may be 2 “assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the 3 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). And “[e]ach district court shall establish rules pursuant to 4 which the magistrate judges shall discharge their duties.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(4). The purpose of 5 the Federal Magistrates Act is to improve the effective administration of justice. Peretz, 501 U.S. 6 at 928. 7 Here, Plaintiff is correct that all parties to this action have not consented to magistrate 8 judge jurisdiction. In fact, no appearance has been made by the entities named as defendants in 9 Plaintiff’s complaint. Nevertheless, the undersigned’s May 6, 2025, order concerns a pretrial, 10 non-dispositive matter and is therefore appropriately addressed by the assigned magistrate judge. 11 The May 6, 2025, order is not dispositive of any matter before the Court and simply seeks to gain 12 additional information necessary to determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma 13 pauperis in this action. Only upon receipt of this information would the dispositive nature of 14 Plaintiff’s application be implicated. In other words, if, upon receipt of the additional information 15 from Plaintiff, the undersigned determines Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, 16 the undersigned would then issue the appropriate findings and recommendations to deny in forma 17 pauperis status to the assigned district judge. Simply put, the May 6, 2025, order is a non- 18 dispositive pretrial order because it does not seek to adjudicate or otherwise dispose of Plaintiff’s 19 claims. 20 Plaintiff’s contention1 that Crandall v. State of Nevada requires this Court to “waive filing 21 fees” for this action is misplaced. In Crandall, the Supreme Court invalidated a Nevada tax on 22 every person leaving the state by common carrier. Id. The Supreme Court has recognized a 23 federal right of free access to the seat of government, including access to courts. Id. However, 24 Crandall does not stand for the proposition that Plaintiff’s filing fee in this action must be 25 1 Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of Supreme Court precedent. Judicial notice is a court’s recognition of 26 the existence of a fact without the necessity of formal proof. See Castillo-Villagra v. I.N.S., 972 F.2d 1017, 1026 (9th Cir. 1992). Decisions of the United States Supreme Court are not an appropriate subject for judicial notice because 27 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 “governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(a) (emphasis added). Although judicial notice is denied, the Court nevertheless considers the applicability of the holdings in 1 waived. See, e.g., Rice v. City of Boise City, No. 1:13-cv-00441-CWD, 2013 WL 6385657, at *1 2 (D. Idaho Dec. 6, 2013) (overruling plaintiff’s objection to providing more detailed financial 3 information and finding Crandall did not stand for the proposition that filing fees are 4 unconstitutional). Bank of Commerce v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ANTHONY DAVIS, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00485-JLT-SKO 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FILED MAY 19, 2025 10 v. (Doc. 7) 11 TUOLUMNE COUNTY JAIL, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff Anthony Davis is a county jail inmate appearing pro se in this civil rights action 15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff filed his complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis on April 28, 18 2025. (Docs. 1& 2.) 19 On May 6, 2025, this Court issued its Order Directing Plaintiff To Provide A Properly 20 Completed Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis By Prisoner, To Include Certification 21 Portion That Is To Be Completed By An Authorized Officer Of The Tuolumne County Jail. (Doc. 22 4.) The Order directed as follows: “Plaintiff SHALL complete a new application form and must 23 ensure the ‘Certificate’ section on page two of the new form is completed, signed, and dated by 24 an ’authorized officer’ of the Tuolumne County Jail, within 21 days of the date of this Order, 25 before returning the properly completed form to the Court for its further consideration.” (Id. at 3, 26 emphasis in original.) 27 On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a completed Consent/Decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form. (Doc. 5 [restricted].) That same date, this case was assigned to District Judge 1 Jennifer L. Thurston. (Doc. 6 [Clerk’s Notice].) 2 On May 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Vacate Void Request.” 3 (Doc. 7.) 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 Plaintiff’s Motion 6 In his motion, Plaintiff contends that pursuant to Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of 7 Evidence, a district court “is required to waive filing fees” so Plaintiff “can access the court for 8 justice is justified by a natural individual right to petition the court without fees,” citing to 9 Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867). (Doc. 7 at 1.) Plaintiff contends this Court must 10 take judicial notice “of precedence under Federal Rules of Evidence 201(b) [‘Bank of Commerce 11 v. Commissioner of Taxes for New York, 2 Black 620 (1863)] requires the Clerk of the Court to 12 waive filing fees to allow the undersigned to access the court.” (Id.) Plaintiff states that “this 13 makes the form that the court claims is required moot.” (Id. at 1-2.) 14 Plaintiff next contends that because “the magistrate judge never received consent from the 15 parties to obtain consent” and that “free access to the courts for relief is constitutional under 1st, 16 5th and 14th amendment, requiring a six month statement to collect filing fees” is 17 unconstitutional and violates section 636(b)(3) Title 28 of the United States Code. (Id. at 2.) 18 Plaintiff “demands that the court proceed forward with [his] constitutional right to petition the 19 court without fees or the inmate statement from the county jail.” (Id.) 20 Analysis 21 The undersigned begins by addressing magistrate judge jurisdiction. “Congress intended 22 magistrates to play an integral and important role in the federal judicial system.” Peretz v. United 23 States, 501 U.S. 923, 928 (1991). The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-39, governs the 24 jurisdiction and authority of federal magistrates. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Act provides that 25 certain matters (for example, non-dispositive pretrial matters) may be referred to a magistrate 26 judge for decision. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Certain other matters (such as case-dispositive 27 motions [for injunctive relief, summary judgment, or failure to state a claim], petitions for writs 1 recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Act also states that a magistrate judge may be 2 “assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the 3 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). And “[e]ach district court shall establish rules pursuant to 4 which the magistrate judges shall discharge their duties.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(4). The purpose of 5 the Federal Magistrates Act is to improve the effective administration of justice. Peretz, 501 U.S. 6 at 928. 7 Here, Plaintiff is correct that all parties to this action have not consented to magistrate 8 judge jurisdiction. In fact, no appearance has been made by the entities named as defendants in 9 Plaintiff’s complaint. Nevertheless, the undersigned’s May 6, 2025, order concerns a pretrial, 10 non-dispositive matter and is therefore appropriately addressed by the assigned magistrate judge. 11 The May 6, 2025, order is not dispositive of any matter before the Court and simply seeks to gain 12 additional information necessary to determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma 13 pauperis in this action. Only upon receipt of this information would the dispositive nature of 14 Plaintiff’s application be implicated. In other words, if, upon receipt of the additional information 15 from Plaintiff, the undersigned determines Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, 16 the undersigned would then issue the appropriate findings and recommendations to deny in forma 17 pauperis status to the assigned district judge. Simply put, the May 6, 2025, order is a non- 18 dispositive pretrial order because it does not seek to adjudicate or otherwise dispose of Plaintiff’s 19 claims. 20 Plaintiff’s contention1 that Crandall v. State of Nevada requires this Court to “waive filing 21 fees” for this action is misplaced. In Crandall, the Supreme Court invalidated a Nevada tax on 22 every person leaving the state by common carrier. Id. The Supreme Court has recognized a 23 federal right of free access to the seat of government, including access to courts. Id. However, 24 Crandall does not stand for the proposition that Plaintiff’s filing fee in this action must be 25 1 Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of Supreme Court precedent. Judicial notice is a court’s recognition of 26 the existence of a fact without the necessity of formal proof. See Castillo-Villagra v. I.N.S., 972 F.2d 1017, 1026 (9th Cir. 1992). Decisions of the United States Supreme Court are not an appropriate subject for judicial notice because 27 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 “governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(a) (emphasis added). Although judicial notice is denied, the Court nevertheless considers the applicability of the holdings in 1 waived. See, e.g., Rice v. City of Boise City, No. 1:13-cv-00441-CWD, 2013 WL 6385657, at *1 2 (D. Idaho Dec. 6, 2013) (overruling plaintiff’s objection to providing more detailed financial 3 information and finding Crandall did not stand for the proposition that filing fees are 4 unconstitutional). Bank of Commerce v. Commissioner of Taxes for New York, 67 U.S. 620, 626 5 (1862) also addresses the manner of taxation regarding a bank’s “surplus of stock.” It does not 6 stand for the proposition that the Clerk of Court must waive the filing fee for this action. See also 7 Rice, 2013 WL 6385657, at *1. 8 Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code—the Prison Litigation Reform Act 9 (PLRA)—applies here and states that “any court of the United States may authorize the 10 commencement … of any suit, action, or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without 11 prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit ….” 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915(a)(1). The statute also provides that a “prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a 13 judgment in a civil action or proceeding without prepayment of fees or security therefor, in 14 addition to filing the affidavit filed under paragraph (1), shall submit a certified copy of the trust 15 fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period 16 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the 17 appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915(a)(2). It further provides: “Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a prisoner brings a civil action 19 or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of the 20 filing fee. …” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 21 To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 22 116 (9th Cir. 1965); see also Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating 23 “IFP status is not a constitutional right”). And filing fees have been consistently upheld on the 24 grounds that reasonable costs may be imposed on persons who want to sue. Lumbert v. Ill. Dept. 25 of Corrections, 827 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir. 1987). “Litigation is not a free good, and its costs are 26 not limited to those who initiate it.” Id.; see also Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 27 1995) (upholding the imposition of partial filing fees on IFP plaintiffs). The PLRA provision 1 unreasonable burden on a prisoner’s constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts. 2 Hendon v. Ramsey, 478 F.Supp.2d 1214, 1219-20 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 3 Federal district courts have wide discretion in acting upon motions to proceed in forma 4 pauperis as plaintiff in a civil action, particularly in civil rights actions brought by prisoners. 5 Torres v. Garcia, 444 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1971). A district court may make factual inquiries when 6 considering whether an individual is entitled to in forma pauperis status. See, e.g., United States v. 7 McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 8 Here, Plaintiff was asked to provide additional information to determine whether he is 9 entitled to in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff was directed to “complete a new application form 10 and must ensure the ‘Certificate’ section on page two of the new form is completed, signed, and 11 dated by an ’authorized officer’ of the Tuolumne County Jail.’” The order and its directive are 12 appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Olivares, 59 F.3d at 111; Lumbert, 827 F.2d at 259; McQuade, 13 647 F.2d at 940; Smart, 347 F.2d at 116; Hendon, 478 F.Supp.2d at 1219-20. Plaintiff’s motion 14 will be denied, and he will be directed to comply with the Court’s May 6, 2025, order. 15 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 For the foregoing reasons, this Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 17 1. Plaintiff “Motion to Vacate Void Request” (Doc. 7) is DENIED; 18 2. Plaintiff SHALL comply with this Court’s May 6, 2025, Order within 14 days of the 19 date of service of this Order; and 20 3. Plaintiff is cautioned that a failure to comply with this Order may result in a 21 recommendation that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for a failure to obey 22 court orders and failure to prosecute. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24
25 Dated: May 23, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26