(PC) Howard v. Shirley

Opinion

4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KARLIS RUBEN AUGUSTUS Case No. 1:24-cv-00387-HBK (PC) 11 HOWARD, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 Plaintiff, RENEWED MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REASSESSING 13 v. FULL FILING FEE

14 HEATHER SHIRLEY, et al., (Doc. No. 43) 15 Defendants. DEFENDANTS TO RETURN CONSENT/DECLINE OF U.S. 16 MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION FORM 17 10-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis 20 (“IFP”) filed on February 14, 2025. (Doc. No. 43). Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, initiated this 21 action while he was incarcerated. (Doc. No. 1). Although currently released, Plaintiff remains 22 obligated to pay the full amount of the statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). As set forth 23 in the Court’s February 3, 2025 Order, the total amount that remains due towards the $350.00 24 filing fee is $350.00. (Doc. No. 41 at 3:4-5). Due to Plaintiff’s release from custody, there is no 25 inmate trust account from which periodic filing fees may be garnished and forwarded to the 26 Court. Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to decide how a released prisoner who is obligated to 27 “pay the full amount of a filing fee” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) may proceed IFP after he is 28 1 | released, “the Ninth Circuit [did note] ‘even prior to the PLRA...district courts possessed 2 | authority under the non-PLRA-related provisions of § 1915 to require partial and/or installment 3 | payments.’” Makoni v. Downs, 2016 WL 7210403, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016) (quoting 4 | Putzer v. Attal, 2013 WL 4519351, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2013)) (citing Olivares v. Marshall, 5 | 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995)). 6 Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed IFP makes the showing required to proceed IFP, but 7 | consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full 8 | $350.00 statutory filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Given Plaintiff's current financial 9 | situation, the Court will not assess a monthly installment payment at this time. However, Plaintiff 10 | remains responsible for the full $350.00 filing fee and will be required to notify the Court as soon 11 | as his financial situation changes. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 13 1. Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 43) is GRANTED. 14 The Court reassesses the $350.00 filing fee due to Plaintiff's former prisoner status. 15 2. Plaintiff must notify the Court within thirty (30) days of any change in his current 16 financial situation, i.e. if Plaintiff secures employment or is deemed eligible to receive 17 any form of federal or state financial assistance. 18 3. Plaintiffs failure to timely notify the Court of a change in his financial circumstances 19 may result in sanctions, including the dismissal this action for failing to comply with a 20 Court order consistent with Local Rule 110. 21 4. Defendants shall return the Consent/Decline to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction 22 form (Doc. No. 2-1) within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. 23 5. Defendants are not required to file a response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended 24 Complaint (Doc. No. 36) until the Court screens the operative pleading. 25 | Dated: _ February 18, 2025 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 27 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE