(PC) Jolivette v. Superior Court of California, County of Solano

Opinion

PAUL PATRICK JOLIVETTE, No. 2:21-cv-0332-KJM-EFB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COUNTY OF SOLANO, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s initial 34-page filing, entitled “Complaint for Registration of a Judgment From Another District [42 U.S.C. § 1983],” was liberally construed as a prisoner civil rights complaint and this civil action was opened. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff, who is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis according to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), paid the $402 filing fee. See ECF No. 7. Subsequently, the court screened the complaint recommended that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as frivolous. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff now requests a partial refund of the filing fee on the ground that his case should have been opened as a “miscellaneous” action to register a foreign judgment. ECF Nos. 16, 17. He is mistaken. ///// ///// Under Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “‘A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” Plaintiff commenced this civil action by filing a complaint with the court. ECF No. 1. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges numerous violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 1-2, 5 (including due process, equal protection, and access to the court). He also invokes supplemental jurisdiction over unidentified state law claims. /d. at 2. Significantly, the complaint seeks relief beyond the miscellaneous task of registering a foreign money judgment. See id. at 5, 13, 18-20 (requesting that the court “issue and grant an order to enforce the expressed contractual agreement by and between the Parties .. .” and for various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief). The Clerk of the Court properly opened this case as a civil action — the proper vehicle for seeking such relief. Thus, the case should not be re-designated as a “miscellaneous” case, which carries only a $47 fee, and no refund is due. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs request for a partial refund of the filing fee and for the re-designation of this action as “miscellaneous” (ECF Nos. 16 & 17) be DENIED. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: September 23, 2021. Doolin 7 Sod 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE