Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05950/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05950-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-05950 OWW LJO P

Appeal No. 05-16751

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

REFUND $255.00 APPELLATE FILING FEE

TO PLAINTIFF, SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF

AFTER DISMISSAL OF APPEAL FOR

FAILURE TO PAY FEE (Doc. 77)

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND MOTIONS FOR

RECUSAL (Docs. 77, 78, 79)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SERVE ORDER ON NINTH CIRCUIT

This civil action is closed, having been dismissed by the Court on February 23, 2006. (Doc.

68.) No appeal of the dismissal was filed. On June 9, 2006, plaintiff sent the $255.00 filing fee to

this Court for appeal number 05-16751, which was filed on July 28, 2005, along with a notice

concerning his appeal and the funds in his account trust account. Plaintiff also requests

reconsideration of the order filed on March 21, 2006. (Doc. 77.) 

In his notice, plaintiff continues to assert that the Court found plaintiff’s appeal was not taken

in good faith because plaintiff had the funds available to pay the filing fee. (Id.) Plaintiff is

incorrect. This Court has already explained to plaintiff that he was ordered to pay the filing fee for

his appeal in full because the appeal was not taken in good faith. (Docs. 46, 65.) Specifically,

plaintiff’s appeal was not taken in good faith because it was premature. (Id.) Plaintiff was not

Case 1:04-cv-05950-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 The motion for reconsideration at issue in this order is receiving a response only because the Court must 1

address plaintiff’s untimely submission of his filing fee and order the return of the fee.

2

ordered to pay the filing fee in full because the Court found he had funds available. (Id.) Plaintiff

continues to demonstrate his inability or unwillingness to accept the Court’s explanation. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order filed on March 21, 2006, will not be

considered. Plaintiff was informed by the Court in its order of April 7, 2006, that the Court will

consider no further motions by plaintiff seeking relief from the dismissal of this action, and that any

further motions filed by plaintiff not related to a properly filed appeal will not be considered and will

not receive any response from the Court.

1

Appeal number 05-16751 was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit on December 23, 2005, based

on plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee in full as ordered. (Doc. 67.) Because the appeal has been

dismissed and is no longer pending, plaintiff erred by sending this court the filing fee for the appeal

more than six months after the fee was due and more than five months after the appeal was

dismissed. The Clerk’s Office shall be directed to refund plaintiff the $255.00 filing fee for his

appeal.

In addition, on July 13, 2006, plaintiff filed motions seeking the recusal of the Magistrate

Judge assigned to this case. In accordance with the Court’s order of April 7, 2006, the motions shall

not be considered.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to the order filed on April 7, 2006, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration,

filed June 9, 2006, is DISREGARDED;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall refund plaintiff the $255.00 filing fee he submitted for an

appeal that has already been dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee; 

3. Pursuant to the order filed on April 7, 2006, plaintiff’s motions seeking recusal of the

Magistrate Judge, filed on July 13, 2006, are DISREGARDED; and

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05950-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

4. The Clerk’s Office shall serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05950-OWW -LJO Document 80 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 3