# (PC) Kenyon D. Brown v. CDCR Director

> District Court, E.D. California · October 22, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031214

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** October 22, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031214

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KENYON DARRELL BROWN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01186-NONE-SKO (PC)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
13 v. FROM FILING FEE PAYMENTS

14 CDCR DIRECTOR, et al., (Doc. 10)
15 Defendants.
16

17
Plaintiff Kenyon Darrell Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis in this action. On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the filing fee
19
for this action be waived, and that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
20
stop deducting filing-fee payments from his inmate trust account. (Doc. 10.)
21
Prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis are “required to pay the full amount of a filing
22
fee” of any civil action they initiate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The in forma pauperis statute
23
provides that prisoners “shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee,” and the “court
24
shall assess and … collect … an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent” of the average monthly
25
deposits or average monthly balance in the prisoner’s trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
26
(emphasis added). Additionally, “the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20
27
percent of the preceding month’s income.” Id. § 1915(b)(2) (emphasis added).
1 Thus, according to the statute, the Court does not have discretion to waive the filing fee.
2 The filing fee obligation and payment amounts are mandatory. See, e.g., Soares v. Paramo, No.
3 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB, 2018 WL 5962728, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2018); Cartwright v. Sparks, No.
4 1:94-cv-06044-AWI, 2012 WL 394175, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Adams v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff's
5 Office, No. 2:10-cv-01558-PHX-RCB, 2010 WL 4269528, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. 2010). Accordingly,
6 Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8

9 Dated: October 22, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031214. Public record. Not legal advice.