(PC) Townsend v. Rendon

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 1, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-01120·Unknown

Opinion

ARTHUR D. TOWNSEND, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01120-DAD-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ) REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS M. RENDON, et al., ) STATUS ) ) (ECF No. 19) Defendants. ) )

Plaintiff Arthur D. Townsend is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, filed January 18, 2022. I. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s retaliation and excessive force claims against Defendant M. Rendon. On January 18, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status based on his release from prison. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition and the time to do has now passed. Local Rule 230(l). /// /// /// II. All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), at the time of filing, he may be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but unlike non-incarcerated civil litigants, he remains obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, under the PLRA, a prisoner seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis must submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month's income, in any month in which the prisoner's account exceeds $10, and forward those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). /// /// 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14). However, the additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. Plaintiff was incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran when he filed this action. As a prisoner, therefore, he is “required to pay the full amount of a filing fee” in order to commence a civil action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). When a prisoner, like Plaintiff, files a motion to proceed IFP which shows he is financially unable to prepay the full amount of the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), the Court typically assesses an initial partial filing fee based on Plaintiff's average inmate trust account deposits and balances over the six-month period preceding the filing of his complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), and thereafter directs the “agency having custody” to forward both the initial and subsequent monthly payments required “until the filing fees are paid.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). However, Plaintiff's release from custody renders 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)'s fee collection provisions unenforceable in this case. Plaintiff notified the Court of his release and address change in another action pending in this Court. See Townsend v. Ruiz, Case No. 2:20-cv-01179-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal), ECF No. 29 (“I was released November 2nd, 2021 from C.S.P.”).2 The Clerk of Court also filed the notice of change of address in this action on November 29, 2021.3,4 Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, and he is no longer in the custody of any state or local correctional institution, no inmate trust account exists from which his filing fees may be garnished and forwarded to the court. See DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 315 F.3d 396, 399 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that after a prisoner is released, there is “no 'prisoner's account' from which to deduct ... payments.”). Thus, if a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis is released from prison while their action is pending, they must submit an updated in forma pauperis affidavit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) or pay the filing fee. See DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 315 F.3d at 399; In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138-39 (6th Cir. 1997); McGann v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 96 F.3d 28, 30 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding “a released prisoner may litigate without further prepayment of fees upon satisfying the poverty affidavit

2 On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second notice of change of address. (ECF No. 36.)

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

(PC) Townsend v. Rendon, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

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

Related