Hughey v. Kernan
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Freddie Hughey, a pro se prisoner, requested the court remove a $350 federal filing fee and a $10,000 state restitution fine from his prison trust account. The court denied the request, holding it lacked statutory authority to waive the filing fee and no jurisdiction over the state fine, which was not part of the closed action.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's request to remove the $350 federal filing fee from his prison trust account.“Section 1915(b) does not grant a court discretion to “remove” the filing fee from a prison trust account.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) mandates that a prisoner 'shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee' when proceeding in forma pauperis. The statute provides no mechanism for the court to waive or remove this obligation from the prisoner's trust account. The citation to Taylor v. Delatoore supports the constitutionality of the mandatory payment scheme, reinforcing that the court cannot deviate from the statutory requirement. |
Denial of Plaintiff's request to remove the $10,000 state restitution fine from his prison trust account.“Similarly, this Court has no authority to “remove” the $10,000 restitution fine imposed by the California state court.” | agree with court The federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to modify or vacate a state court judgment, including a restitution fine. Furthermore, the order notes that the case was closed in 2019 and the time to amend pleadings to include such a claim had expired. The court correctly directs the plaintiff to file a new action in the appropriate court (likely state court) if he wishes to challenge the fine. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and legally sound. It accurately applies the mandatory language of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) regarding filing fees and correctly identifies the lack of jurisdiction over state court judgments. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 FREDDIE HUGHEY, Case No.: 18-cv-313-WQH-BGS CDCR #E-95781, 10 ORDER Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary at CDCR, 14 Defendant. 15 HAYES, Judge: 16 On April 15, 2022, Plaintiff Freddie Hughey, proceeding pro se and incarcerated at 17 Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, filed a letter requesting 18 that the Court “remove” from his prison trust account the $350 filing fee related to the 19 above-captioned action and a $10,000 restitution fine imposed by a California state court. 20 (ECF No. 17 at 2). As the Court explained in the May 21, 2018 Order granting Plaintiff’s 21 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the $350 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 is 22 required to be paid pursuant to the payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 23 (ECF No. 4 at 2-3). Section 1915(b) does not grant a court discretion to “remove” the filing 24 fee from a prison trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (“[I]f a prisoner brings a civil 25 action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full 26 amount of a filing fee.”) (emphasis added); see also Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 27 851 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that § 1915(b) is constitutional). 28 1 Similarly, this Court has no authority to “remove” the $10,000 restitution fine 2 ||imposed by the California state court. In his Complaint filed in this Court, Plaintiff claimed 3 || that he was entitled to early parole consideration and did not seek any relief related to the 4 ||$10,000 restitution fine. On March 5, 2019, Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant 5 ||in this case and, accordingly, the time for Plaintiff to amend his pleadings to add a claim 6 ||related to the restitution fine has expired. If Plaintiff wishes to challenge or otherwise 7 “remove” the fine, he must file a new action in the appropriate court. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request to remove the $350 filing fee and 9 $10,000 restitution fine from his prison trust account is denied. This case remains closed. 10 || Dated: May 9, 2022 BME: ie Z. A a 1] Hon. William Q. Hayes 2 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2