(PC) Dearwester v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 11, 2020
• Docket: 1:15-cv-00621
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK LEE DEARWESTER, Case No. 1:15-cv-00621-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FILING FEE UNDER 28 U.S.C. 13 v. § 1915

14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF (Doc. 9) CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants.

17 18 Plaintiff Frank Lee Dearwester is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. On June 19 9, 2015, the Court dismissed this action as duplicative. (Doc. 8.) On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a 20 motion requesting relief from the filing fee payments required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). (Doc. 9.) 21 Plaintiff’s motion is identical to a motion he filed in Dearwester v. California Department 22 of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 1:15-cv-00354-SKO (E.D. Cal.) (Doc. 19). As the Court 23 explained in denying the latter motion, the filing fee is mandatory for plaintiffs proceeding in 24 forma pauperis; the Court does not have the discretion to waive it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b); see 25 also Soares v. Paramo, No. 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB, 2018 WL 5962728, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 26 2018); Cartwright v. Sparks, No. 1:94-cv-06044-AWI, 2012 WL 394175, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012); 27 Adams v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff's Office, No. 2:10-cv-01558-PHX-RCB, 2010 WL 4269528, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. 2010). In addition, the Supreme Court has held that plaintiffs must make the filing- 1 fee payments in a case simultaneously, not sequentially, with such payments in earlier-filed cases. 2 Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 631-32 (2016). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 3 motion. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

Sheila K. Oberto 6 Dated: May 11, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27