Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02334/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02334-5/pdf.json

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

---

1

10cv2334-WQH-POR

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW L. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARR, Correctional Officer, 

Captain of the Prison,

Defendant.

Case No.: 10cv2334-WQH-POR

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the request to consolidate filing fees filed by Plaintiff 

Matthew L. Johnson. (ECF No. 46). 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action on November 10, 2010 

by filing a Complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1–2.) In the 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff states, “I also understand that this fee will 

be debited from my account regardless of the outcome of this action.” (ECF No. 2 at 5.) 

The Court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and stated: 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has no available funds from which 

to pay filing fees at this time . . . . Therefore, the Court GRANTS 

Case 3:10-cv-02334-WQH-POR Document 47 Filed 10/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

10cv2334-WQH-POR

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

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] and assesses no 

initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the 

entire $350 balance of the filing fees mandated shall be collected 

and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the 

installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(1).

(ECF No. 4.) On September 16, 2011, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice 

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 21.) 

REQUEST TO CLARIFY AND CONSOLIDATE FEE OBLIGATIONS 

On September 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting the Court to clarify his fee 

obligations and “consolidate all fees into one action and FEE to be paid in the sums of 20% 

of Petitioner’s wages instead of 60%.” (ECF No. 46 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that he “fully 

accept[s] his obligations to pay such Fees.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff asserts that he pays three 

“seperate Fees for one case.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that fees for this case “as well as case 

number 08-cv-00080-DMS-POR, CASE TITLE: ‘Johnson v. DARR,’” amount to “almost 

$1,000 in Filing fees,” and “60% of [his] monthly wages.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that he 

“makes around about $48.00 monthly to take care and support himself,” and that after 

deductions of $26.40 for his conviction restitution and $16.10 for filing fees, he is left with 

“$10.00 a month.” Id.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(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 shall assess and, when funds exist, collect, 

as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, an initial 

partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of—

(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account; or

(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 

6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the 

complaint or notice of appeal.

Case 3:10-cv-02334-WQH-POR Document 47 Filed 10/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

10cv2334-WQH-POR

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

§ 1915(b)(1) (emphasis added). Subsection (b)(2) further requires that:

After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall 

be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the 

preceding month’s income 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 

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing 

fees are paid.

§ 1915(b)(2). The statute further indicates that “[i]n no event shall the filing fee collected 

exceed the amount of fees permitted by statute for the commencement of a civil action,”

and that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action . . . for 

the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial 

filing fee.” §§ 1915(b)(3)–(4); see also Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 

2002) (finding that § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve” preventing dismissal of a 

prisoner’s IFP case for “failure to pay . . . due to the lack of funds available.”). 

Nothing in § 1915 provides any authority for courts to waive full payment of the 

filing fee required by § 1915(b)(1), or return any portion of the filing fee he has already 

paid, after the civil action has been dismissed. See Avery v. Paramo, No. 13CV2261 BTM 

DHB, 2015 WL 5228034, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015); Wilson v. Calif. Dep’t of Corrs., 

No. 13cv1455 BTM (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014); Adams v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s 

Office, 2010 WL 4269528 at *1–2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2010) (denying prisoner’s motion to 

stop withdrawal of trust account funds pursuant to § 1915(b) and noting that “[t]he decision 

to file and prosecute this case was made by Plaintiff before he filed [his] case. Having filed 

[it], [he] and the Court are both statutorily limited by the strictures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). 

The Supreme Court has held that the payment of filing fees in prisoner IFP cases 

requires a “per case” approach. Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 632 (2016). 

Just as § 1915(b)(1) calls for assessment of “an initial partial 

filing fee” each time a prisoner brings “a civil action or files an

Case 3:10-cv-02334-WQH-POR Document 47 Filed 10/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

10cv2334-WQH-POR

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

appeal” (emphasis added) so its allied provision, § 1915(b)(2), 

triggered immediately after, calls for “monthly payments of 20 

percent of the preceding month’s income” simultaneously for 

each action pursued. 

Id. The Supreme Court held that this interpretation “better comports with the purpose of 

the PLRA to deter frivolous suits,” while § 1915(b)(4)’s “safety-valve provision . . . ensures 

against denial of access to federal courts.” Id. at 632–33. 

In this case, the relevant dockets show that Plaintiff is required to pay the full $350 

initial filing fee for both cases. See 10-cv-2334 at ECF No. 4; 08-cv-080 at ECF No. 3. 

The dockets also show that Plaintiff is required to pay the $455 appellate filing fee due as 

a result of his filing a notice of appeal in both cases. See 10-cv-2334 at ECF No. 37 for 

Appeal No. 12-55532; 08-cv-080 at ECF No. 22 for Appeal No. 09-55490. Plaintiff’s total 

fees are $1,600. Plaintiff asks the Court to “consolidate all fees into one action” so that 

only 20 percent of his monthly wages are garnished for all of his cases. However, the Court 

concludes that no provision of § 1915 authorizes the Court to waive the filing fee 

obligations Plaintiff incurred when he was granted IFP status as an individual in custody. 

See § 1915(b). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request to consolidate filing fees is DENIED. 

(ECF No. 46.)

Dated: October 22, 2018

Case 3:10-cv-02334-WQH-POR Document 47 Filed 10/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4