(PC) Rios v. Ortiz

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 17, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-01595·Unknown

Opinion

JOSE MIGUEL RIOS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01595-HBK (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION TO PROCEED IN v. FORMA PAUPERIS AND REASSESSING FULL FILING FEE (Doc. No. 29) Defendant. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) filed on December 19, 2024. (Doc. No. 29). Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, initiated this action while he was incarcerated. (Doc. No. 1). Although currently released, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full amount of the statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). As set forth in the Court’s December 9, 2024 Order, the total amount that remains due towards the $350.00 filing fee is $350.00. (Doc. No. 27 at 3). Due to Plaintiff’s release from custody, there is no inmate trust account from which periodic filing fees may be garnished and forwarded to the Court. Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to decide how a released prisoner who is obligated to “pay the full amount of a filing fee” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) may proceed IFP after he is released, “the Ninth Circuit [did note] ‘even prior to the PLRA…district courts possessed authority under the non-PLRA-related provisions of § 1915 to require partial and/or installment payments.’” Makoni v. Downs, 2016 WL 7210403, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016) (quoting Putzer v. Attal, 2013 WL 4519351, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2013)) (citing Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed IFP makes the showing required to proceed IFP, but consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full $350.00 statutory filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Given Plaintiffs current financial situation, the Court will not assess a monthly installment payment at this time. However, Plaintiff remains responsible for the full $350.00 filing fee and is required to notify the Court as soon as his financial situation changes. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 29) is GRANTED and the Court assesses the full $350.00 filing fee due to Plaintiffs former prisoner status. 2. Plaintiff shall notify the Court within thirty (30) days of any change in his current financial situation, 1.e. if Plaintiff secures employment or is deemed eligible to receive any form of federal or state financial assistance. 3. Plaintiffs failure to timely notify the Court of a change in his financial circumstances may result in the Court dismissing this action as a sanction for failing to comply with a Court order. See Local Rule 110. Dated: _ January 17, 2025 law ZA. foareh Zackte HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Rios v. Ortiz, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

(PC) Rios v. Ortiz ((PC) Rios v. Ortiz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Olivares v. Marshall
59 F.3d 109 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)