Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01595/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01595-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MIGUEL RIOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORTIZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01595-HBK (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY 

BALANCE OF FILING FEE OR FILE 

UPDATED FINANCIAL INFORMATION 

JANUARY 9, 2025 DEADLINE

On December 6, 2024, Plaintiff Jose Miguel Rios, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Notice 

of Change of Address indicating he was recently released from CDCR custody.

1

 (See Doc. No. 

26). Because Plaintiff initiated this action while a prisoner and was granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (Doc. No. 4), he is “required to pay the full 

amount of a filing fee” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Based 

on Plaintiff’s “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for 

. . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint,” 28 U.S.C. § 

1 The Court also independently has confirmed that Plaintiff, who was formerly identified as Jose Miguel 

Rios Inmate No. BY7059, is no longer in CDCR custody. See https://apps.cdcr.ca.gov/ciris/results (last 

visited December 9, 2024); see Pacheco v. Diaz, 2019 WL 5073594, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2019) 

(taking judicial notice of CDCR’s Inmate Locator system).

Case 1:23-cv-01595-HBK Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 4
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

1915(a)(2), the Court granted Plaintiff IFP, assessed the full $350.00 filing fee, 2directed the

“agency having custody” over Plaintiff to forward to the Clerk of Court both the initial, and any 

subsequent monthly payments required “until the filing fees are paid,” in full. (Doc. No. 4). See 

§ 1915(b)(2); see also Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005); Bruce v. Samuels, 

577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016). 

Due to Plaintiff’s release, the fee collection provision is now unenforceable, and the Court 

no longer has the means to collect the fees owed by Plaintiff. See DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 315 F.3d 

396, 399 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that, after a prisoner is released, there is “no ‘prisoner’s account’ 

from which to deduct . . . payments”).

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 has 

been released, see Putzer v. Attal, 2013 WL 4519351, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2013) (noting the 

“unresolved issue within the Ninth Circuit regarding the application of the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act (PLRA) pauper application requirements in cases where the prisoner is released 

pendente lite, i.e., during the litigation”), other circuits and district courts in California have found

the statutory language of § 1915(b)(1) requires released prisoners to pay the amounts still due 

after their release if they wish to continue to prosecute their action. Gay v. Tex. Dep’t of Corr., 

117 F.3d 240, 241–42 (5th Cir. 1997); In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247, 1251–52 (D.C. Cir. 1997); 

Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895, 897–99 (7th Cir. 1997); Townsend v. Rendon, 2022 WL 

1462181, at *2 (E.D. Cal. April 1, 2022) (directing released inmate to “either pay the filing fee in 

full or submit a complete[d] application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner”); 

Makoni v. Downs, 2016 WL 7210403, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016) (denying released 

prisoner’s initial IFP motion and requiring supplemental post-release IFP motion); Flynn v. 

Canlas, 2015 WL 8492503, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015) (same); Adler v. Gonzalez, 2015 WL 

4041772, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2015) (requiring “updated IFP application” of released prisoner 

2

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. 

Oct. 19, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 

IFP. Id.

Case 1:23-cv-01595-HBK Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 4
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

because court “ha[d] before it no evidence that Plaintiff [remained] a pauper,” and the 

“[c]ircumstances that undoubtedly contributed to his impoverishment, i.e., imprisonment, no 

longer exist”); Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (remanding fee payments to 

district court in order to “review [plaintiff's] present economic situation and fit a fee to the 

economic facts if [he was] still interested in pursuing his claim”).

Consequently, for this case to proceed further, Plaintiff must pay $350.00 (the total 

amount that remains due toward the $350.00 filing fee) in one lump sum no later than January 9, 

2025, if he wishes to continue to prosecute this action. 

Figure 1 – Plaintiff’s Fee Balance as of December 9, 2024

If Plaintiff cannot pay this amount in one lump sum, Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion 

to proceed IFP accompanied by the enclosed financial form completed and signed to under 

penalty of perjury by this same date. Plaintiff must provide a complete picture of his current 

financial situation, including an explanation as to his ability to provide basic necessities for 

himself. Plaintiff must include any information relating to any financial assistance he receives, 

the amount of this assistance, and the name of the entity providing this assistance. The Court will 

then review the renewed application and set a monthly payment schedule for the remainder of the 

$350.00 filing fee.

3

 

////

3

“In 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 filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).

Case 1:23-cv-01595-HBK Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED:

1. No later than January 9, 2025, Plaintiff must pay $350.00 (the total amount that 

remains due toward the $350.00 filing fee) in one lump sum by cashier’s check, money order, or 

personal check, payable to the Clerk of Court. Plaintiff shall include his name and case no. 

1:23cv01595-HBK on the check.

3. If Plaintiff cannot pay this amount in one lump sum, Plaintiff, by this same date, 

shall file a renewed motion to proceed IFP accompanied by the enclosed financial form 

completed and signed to under penalty of perjury. 

4. The Clerk of the Court shall enclose a blank AO 239 (Rev. 01/15) Application to 

Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) with this Order for 

Plaintiff’s use, if appropriate.

5. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order by failing to either pay $350.00 in one 

lump sum or submitting a completed AO 239 renewed IFP application, the case may be dismissed 

for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and/or as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order.

Dated: December 9, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01595-HBK Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 4 of 4