(PC) Wilkins v. Gonzalez
This text of (PC) Wilkins v. Gonzalez ((PC) Wilkins v. Gonzalez) 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.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Keenan Wilkins, No. 2:16-cv-00347-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Paul Gonzalez, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this civil rights action without counsel in February 2016. 18 | This court revoked plaintiff's in forma pauperis (IFP) status on March 14, 2018, and ordered him 19 | to pay a $400.00 filing fee within thirty days. Order, ECF No. 61, at 3. Plaintiff did not pay the 20 | filing fee, nor did he show good cause, and so this action was dismissed. Dismissal Order, ECF 21 | No. 68. Plaintiff subsequently petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus, which was 22 | “denied without prejudice to petitioner seeking whatever relief may be available in the district 23 | court in light of Meyers v. Birdsong, 83 F.4th 1157, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2023).” Ninth Circuit 24 | Order, ECF No. 76. Plaintiff now files this motion for relief under Rule 60 and the Ninth 25 | Circuit’s Order, asking for a “refund of all fees collected in this action as he was not allowed to 26 | proceed IFP and for an order from the court to prison officials to cease collection.” Mot. at 4, 27 | ECF No. 77.
1 In Meyers v. Birdsong, the court held “§ 1915(b) neither permits nor requires the 2 collection of fees from a struck-out prisoner who attempts to file an appeal IFP,” and “directed 3 the Clerk of the District Court to return any fees that it collected on [the court’s] behalf for [the] 4 appeal.” Meyers, 83 F.4th at 1161. Here, plaintiff’s request does not include sufficient 5 information or evidence to establish a successful claim for a refund, such as evidence of the funds 6 withdrawn or subject to future withdrawal from his account or evidence the court has ordered the 7 withdrawal of the funds. See Mot. at 1–6. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. 8 This order resolves ECF No. 77. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: December 7, 2023.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(PC) Wilkins v. Gonzalez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-wilkins-v-gonzalez-caed-2023.