Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00462/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00462-3/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

DEVIN TREVONE LAMAR III,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONN, TOON, T. LEWIS, and FRANCO,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00462-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

RENEWED MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND REASSESSING

FULL FILING FEE

(Doc. No. 11)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) filed on October 25, 2023. (Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, initiated this 

action while he was incarcerated. (Doc. No. 1). Although currently released, Plaintiff remains 

obligated to pay the full amount of the statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). As set forth 

in the Court’s September 20, 2023 Order, the total amount that remains due towards the $350.00 

filing fee is $350.00. (Doc. No. 9 at 3). Due to Plaintiff’s release from custody, there is no 

inmate trust account from which periodic filing fees may be garnished and forwarded to the 

Court. Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to decide how a released prisoner who is obligated to 

“pay the full amount of a filing fee” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) may proceed IFP after he is 

released, “the Ninth Circuit [did note] ‘even prior to the PLRA...district courts possessed 

authority under the non-PLRA-related provisions of § 1915 to require partial and/or installment 

payments.’” Makoni v. Downs, 2016 WL 7210403, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016) (quoting 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 12 Filed 10/27/23 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

Putzer v. Attal, 2013 WL 4519351, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2013)) (citing Olivares v. Marshall, 

59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed IFP makes the showing required to proceed IFP, but 

consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full 

$350.00 statutory filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Given Plaintiff’s current financial 

situation, the Court will not assess a monthly installment payment at this time. However, Plaintiff 

remains responsible for the full $350.00 filing fee and will be required to notify the Court as soon 

as his financial situation changes. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED

and the Court assesses the full $350.00 filing fee due to Plaintiff’s former prisoner 

status.

2. Plaintiff shall notify the Court within thirty (30) days of any change in his current 

financial situation, i.e., if Plaintiff secures employment or is deemed eligible to receive 

any form of federal or additional 1state financial assistance. 

3. Plaintiff’s failure to timely notify the Court of a change in his financial circumstances 

will result in the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss this action.

Dated: October 27, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 The current assistance appears to cover only Plaintiff’s basic necessitates.

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 12 Filed 10/27/23 Page 2 of 2