Lozano v. Reighley
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, a prisoner, moved to voluntarily dismiss his civil action and requested a waiver of the remaining filing fee. The court granted the voluntary dismissal without prejudice but denied the fee waiver request.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice.“The Court construes Plaintiff’s statement that he no longer wants to follow this case as a request to voluntarily dismiss the case, which request is granted.” | agree with court The court correctly construed the plaintiff's letter as a request for voluntary dismissal. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before a responsive pleading is served or a motion for summary judgment is filed. While the order does not explicitly cite Rule 41, the procedural posture (a letter from the plaintiff indicating a desire to stop the case) supports this construction, and the dismissal is without prejudice, preserving the plaintiff's right to refile if the statute of limitations permits. |
Denying Plaintiff's request to waive the remainder of his filing fee.“Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to waive payment of the remainder of filing fee is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The PLRA mandates that prisoners pay the full filing fee through an initial partial payment and subsequent monthly installments. The statute does not provide for the waiver of the remaining balance upon dismissal. The court cited *Bruce v. Samuels* and *Woodford v. Ngo* to support the proposition that the fee payment provisions are mandatory and not subject to judicial discretion for waiver after the case is filed. This interpretation is consistent with binding Ninth Circuit precedent and the text of the statute. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the plaintiff's intent to dismiss and applies the PLRA's mandatory fee provisions to deny the waiver request. The court cites relevant Supreme Court and district court precedents to support its conclusion that the fee obligation persists despite dismissal. The reasoning is direct and supported by the statutory text and cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFONSO LOZANO, Case No.: 19cv884 DMS (JLB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) DENYING REQUEST FOR FEE 14 REGGIE REIGHLEY; ARTHUR WAIVER STEPHENS 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 The Court is in receipt of a letter from Plaintiff dated April 23, 2020, in which he 19 states, “I no longer want to follow this case,” and requests that the Court waive payment 20 of the remainder of his filing fee. (ECF No. 18.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s statement 21 that he no longer wants to follow this case as a request to voluntarily dismiss the case, 22 which request is granted. 23 As to Plaintiff’s request to waive the remainder of his filing fee, that request is 24 denied. “Reacting to ‘a sharp rise in prisoner litigation,’ Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 25 84 (2006), Congress in 1996 enacted the PLRA, which installed a variety of measures 26 ‘designed to filter out the bad claims [filed by prisoners] and facilitate consideration of the 27 good,’ Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. __, __, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1762 (2015) (quoting Jones 28 1 v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007) (alteration in original).” Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 2 627, 629-30 (2016). 3 “Among those measures, Congress required prisoners to pay filing fees for the suits 4 or appeals they launch.” Id. at 630. “The provisions on fee payment, set forth in 1915(b), 5 read: 6 (1) ... [I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court 7 shall assess and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any court 8 fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of— 9 10 (A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account; or 11 (B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the 6–month 12 period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal. 13 (2) After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall be required 14 to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income 15 credited to the prisoner’s account. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner’s account to the clerk of the court 16 each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid. 17 18 Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (2) (emphasis added)). “The monthly installment 19 scheme described in § 1915(b)(2) also applies to costs awarded against prisoners when they 20 are judgment losers.” Id. (citing § 1915(f)(2)(B)). 21 Thus, § 1915 no longer provides any authority for courts to waive full payment of 22 the filing fee required by § 1915(b)(1), or return any portion of the filing fee he has already 23 paid, after the civil action has been consolidated, settled, or dismissed for any reason. See 24 e.g., Johnson v. Darr, No. 3:10-CV-2334-WQH-POR, 2018 WL 5246597, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 25 Oct. 22, 2018); Avery v. Paramo, No. 3:13-CV-2261 BTM DHB, 2015 WL 5228034, at *3 26 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015); Wilson v. Calif. Dep’t of Corrs., No. 3:13-cv-1455 BTM (JLB) 27 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014); Adams v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, No. CV 10-1558-PHX- 28 RCB (ECV), 2010 WL 4269528 at *1–2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2010) (denying prisoner’s 1 motion to stop withdrawal of trust account funds pursuant to § 1915(b) and noting that 2 ||“[t]he decision to file and prosecute this case was made by Plaintiff before he filed [his] 3 || case. Having filed [it], [he] and the Court are both statutorily limited by the strictures of 28 4 ||U.S.C. § 1915.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to waive payment of the remainder of 5 filing fee is denied. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: July 30, 2020 g ns my. L4\ Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28