Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01247/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01247-2/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

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAROYA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F05 1247 AWI LJO P 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT

AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 9.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SEQUENTIAL FEE COLLECTION (Doc. 10.) 

 Carlos Hendon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

September 30, 2005. On November 6, 2006, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to

amend. Plaintiff has moved for additional time to submit the Amended Complaint. In addition,

Plaintiff has submitted a “Motion for Sequential Fee Collection.” In this pleading, Plaintiff

alleges that the method for collecting fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act is

unconstitutional as it will result in the assessment of 100% of Plaintiff’s income per month.

Plaintiff states that the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on this issue and that this Court should adopt

the 2 Circuit’s holding in Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264 (2 Cir. 2001). nd nd

Plaintiff’s Request for more time to file his Amended Complaint will be GRANTED. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s contention that the fee collection under the PLRA is

unconstitutional, his allegations constitute a new claim for relief that cannot be raised in a

Motion in a pending action. Moreover, as the issue arose as a result of Plaintiff’s filing of this

Case 1:05-cv-01247-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

action it cannot be raised as a constitutional claim in this action. Further, Plaintiff’s allegation,

even if filed in a separate action would be denied as the Ninth Circuit has found the fee

provisions of the PLRA constitutional. Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844 (9 Cir. 2002). th

The Ninth Circuit in Taylor noted that the PLRA required all prisoners to pay initial fees

and monthly fees thereafter, several provisions of the PLRA decrease the burden of the fee

requirements placed on the rights of indigent prisoners. Id. at 848-49. For example, the initial

and monthly-payment calculations are based on the prisoners assets and are limited to 20 percent

of that amount. Id. In addition, the initial fee can only be collected when “funds exist” and the

monthly payments can only be deducted when the account balance exceeds ten dollars. Id. 

Finally, the safety-valve provisions ensures that inmates cannot be barred from bringing a civil

action or appeal when he or she does not have enough money to pay the initial fee. Id.; see also,

§ 1915(b)(4). 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Request for an Extension of time to file an Amended Complaint is

GRANTED. The Amended Complaint is due within THIRTY (30) days of the

date of service of this Order; and 

2. The Motion for Sequential Fee Collection is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01247-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2