(PC) Garcia v. Folks

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJune 30, 2022
Docket2:14-cv-02378
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Garcia v. Folks ((PC) Garcia v. Folks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(PC) Garcia v. Folks, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL GARCIA, No. 2:14-cv-2378 JAM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 F. FOLKS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On August 5, 2020, the parties in this action participated in a settlement conference. (ECF 20 No. 169.) During the settlement conference the parties agreed to a settlement. The terms of the 21 agreement were put on the record. Thereafter, the parties submitted a stipulation for voluntary 22 dismissal and this case was closed. (ECF Nos. 170, 171.) Plaintiff has now filed a motion “to 23 clear court fees.” (ECF No. 172.) Defendants have not responded to plaintiff’s motion. 24 Plaintiff states that he agreed to dismiss this action in exchange for a monetary settlement. 25 (ECF No. 172.) He alleges that his inmate trust account states that he still owes $259.57 of the 26 $350.00 filing fee associated with this case. (Id.) He states that he thought his court fees should 27 have been paid as part of the settlement agreement. He requests that the undersigned call the 28 institution where is presently incarcerated and “fix it on [his] account.” 1 Plaintiff has not indicated whether payment of filing fee was included in the settlement 2 agreement. Nor has he included evidence showing that payment of the filing fee was included in 3 the terms of the settlement agreement as set forth on the record. If it was not explicitly stated in 4 the terms of the settlement agreement, defendants are likely not required to pay the balance of the 5 filing fee. 6 Litigants ordinarily are required to pay their own fees, but they may be entitled to recover 7 fees in certain circumstances, provided they were the prevailing party. Klamath Siskiyou 8 Wildlands Center v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 589 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). 9 The term “prevailing party” “means a party in whose favor a judgment is rendered, regardless of 10 the amount of damages awarded” and “requires the party to have achieved a material alteration in 11 the legal relationship of the parties that is judicially sanctioned.” Id. (citations and quotations 12 omitted). “A plaintiff who prevails through settlement can be considered a ‘prevailing party’ 13 under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and therefore can be awarded costs from a defendant.” Allen v. Kelley, 14 Nos. C-91-1635-VRW and C-94-4162-VRW, 1995 WL 396860 at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995) 15 (citing Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129 (1980) and Williams v. Alioto, 625 F.2d 845, 848 (9th 16 Cir. 1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 1012 (1981)). Thus, to the extent plaintiff can show that he was 17 the prevailing party defendants may1 be required to pay plaintiff’s costs. 18 Because plaintiff has not shown that payment of the filing fees was included in the terms 19 of the settlement agreement or that he was the prevailing party and the fees requested are 20 reasonable, the court will deny the motion without prejudice to its renewal. 21 //// 22 //// 23 //// 24 1 Some other courts have indicated that a plaintiff may be required to pay the filing fee where 25 their financial status changes during the course of the litigation. See Wiideman v. Harper, 754 F.Supp. 808, 809 (D. Nev. 1990) (A trial court “may retroactively require plaintiff to pay fees and 26 costs if his financial situation” improves after he is granted in forma pauperis status.); Williams v. 27 Marshall, 795 F.Supp. 978, 979 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (“If [pro se prisoner plaintiff] prevails, the filing fee must be paid out of any monetary recovery.”). 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to clear court fees (ECF 2 | No. 172) is denied without prejudice. 3 Dated: June 29, 2022 4 5 6 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 | DB:12 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/garc2378.fees 13 14 15 16 17 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

Related

Maher v. Gagne
448 U.S. 122 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Alioto Et Al. v. Williams Et Al.
450 U.S. 1012 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Wiideman v. Harper
754 F. Supp. 808 (D. Nevada, 1990)
Williams v. Marshall
795 F. Supp. 978 (N.D. California, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PC) Garcia v. Folks, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-garcia-v-folks-caed-2022.