Opinion

(PC) Brown v. Shaffer

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Mar 15, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.0%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KEITH A. BROWN, Case No. 1:18-cv-470-AWI-HBK

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO DISMISS FILING FEES

13 v.

(Doc. No. 37)

14 JENNIFER SHAFFER, ET. AL.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court dismiss the filing

18 fees filed on November 4, 2021.1 (Doc. No. 37). Noting the district court adopted the findings

19 and recommendations granting defendants’ motion to dismiss in full, Plaintiff seeks “dismissal of

20 all filing fees” based on Plaintiff’s indigency. (Id. at 1).

21 The instant motion is not a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order

22 adopting the Findings and Recommendations and ultimately dismissing this case. (See generally

23 Id.). Rather, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order granting his motion to

24 proceed in forma pauperis and directing the California Department of Corrections to withdraw

25 from Plaintiff’s prison trust account 20% of the proceeding month’s income credited to the

26 prisoner trust account. (Id. at 1-2) (referring to Doc. No. 5). This order was entered on April 11,

27 2018. (See Doc. No. 5 at 2). In support, Plaintiff points to the emergency procedures in place in

28 1 Plaintiff titles his pleading as a “motion for reconsideration.”

1 | the Eastern District of California and requests the filing fees be waived so as to not cause “any

2 | undue stress to an already overly worked stretched thin staff.” (Doc. No. 37 at 1).

3 Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

4 | Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir.

5 | 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

6 | induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See United States v. Westland Water Dist., 134 F.

7 | Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a

8 | reasonable time. And, for reasons (1), (2), and (3) set forth above no more than a year after the

9 | entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding. Moreover, when filing a motion for

10 | reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or

11 | circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or

12 | what other grounds exist for the motion.”

13 Here, Plaintiff presents no reason sufficient to warrant reconsideration of the Court’s order

14 | granting his in forma pauperis motion and requiring he continue to make payments on the filing

15 | fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Even though defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted and

16 | the case closed, Plaintiff remains responsible for payment of the case filing fee consistent with §

17 | 1915 (stating the prisoner “shall” be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the

18 | preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account” any time the amount exceeds $10

19 | until the filing fees are paid).

20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

21 Plaintiff's motion to dismiss filing fees (Doc. No. 37) is DENIED.

22

°° | Dated: _ March 15,2022 Wiha. Th. fareh fackte

24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.