Cazares v. City of El Centro

Opinion

1 2 3 5 □ 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} JON CAZARES, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01571-BEN-RBM 12 Plainuft, | ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 13 || V. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN | crrvoF Et. CENTRO, eat, DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT 15 Defendants. 16 17 [Doc. 2] 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff Jon Cazares (“Plaintiff’) filed a complaint against 21 Defendants City of El Centro (“El Centro”), El Centro Police Department Chief of Police 22 Brian Johnson (“Johnson”), and Does 1 through 10 (collectively “Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) 23 Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his rights under the Uniformed Services Employment 24 Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. § 4301, et seq., and discriminated 25 retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing 26 || Act (“FEHA”), California Government Code § 12940. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff did not pay 27 |\the required filing fee and instead filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment 28 (“the Application”). (Doc. 2.)

1 Having reviewed the underlying complaint and Application, the undersigned 2 || GRANTS Plaintiff's Application. 3 fl. DISCUSSION 4 All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of the United States, except an 5 application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 6 But litigants proceeding under USERRA are explicitly exempt from being charged 7 or court costs. 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(1) (stating “[n]o fees or court costs may be charged 8 ||or taxed against any person claiming rights under this chapter.”) Congress enacted 9 || USERRA, in part, to “prohibit discrimination against persons because of their service in 10 || the uniformed services.” 38 U.S.C. § 4301(a)(3). The statute has been construed liberally 11 favor of uniformed service members seeking its protections. See Davis v. Advocate 12 || Health Ctr. Patient Care Exp., 523 F.3d 681, 683-84 (7th Cir. 2008). Courts have 13 |/interpreted the language of 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(1) to include normal litigation costs such 14 |\ as filing fees. See Davis, 523 F.3d at 684-85; Kowalski v. Hospice by the Sea, Ltd., 15-cv- 15 ||01954-JAH-DHB, Doc. 3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2015); Vonville v. New Century Air Serv., 16 ||Jnc., 16-cv-02621-JAR-TJJ, 2016 WL 4919804, *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 15, 2016). 17 Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated entitlement to proceed without 18 || prepayment of the filing fee under 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(1). Plaintiff's first cause of action 19 alleges a cause of action under USERRA. (Doc. 1 at □□ 33-43; Doc. 2 at 2.) Plaintiff 20 asserts he is entitled to the protections of USERRA because he was a member of the 21 || uniformed service with the United States Marine Corps from 2012 to 2019. (Doc. 1 at □ 22 Doc. 2 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated USERRA’s anti-retaliation and 23 || anti-discrimination provisions by terminating Plaintiff during his probationary period due 24 “his military/veteran status... (Doc. 1 at J 40.) 25 In light of the plain language of 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(1) and caselaw, the undersigned 26 || finds that Plaintiff is exempt from prepaying the filling fee. 27 28 1 UI. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application is 3 ||GRANTED. The Court hereby waives the filing fee and Plaintiff may proceed with this 4 || case without prepayment of the $400 filing fee pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(1). 5 IT ISSO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 24, 2020 8 IN. RUTH BE DEZ MONTENEGRO 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28