Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079-8/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

HUNG D. NGUON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O CLARK, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5079 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY AS MOOT (Doc. 32.) 

ORDER DENYING REIMBURSEMENT OF

FEES (Doc. 35.) 

Hung D. Nguon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 17, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the

Central District of California. The action was transferred and received in this Court on January

14, 2004. 

On August 18, 2003, prior to the filing of this action, an identical action had been filed in

the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. That action was transferred to this

Court as well. On August 9, 2005, the Court consolidated the two actions based on the identical

nature of the claims for relief. 

On October 31, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Discovery in which he requested that

the Court open formal discovery. The Court, however, issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order

on November 2, 2005. Accordingly, the Motion for Discovery is DENIED as moot. 

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 36 Filed 11/09/05 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

On November 3, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reimbursement of Court fees. 

Plaintiff states that he paid the fees in both actions filed which were ultimately transferred to this

Court for proper venue and consolidated based on the identical nature of the Claims. Plaintiff

wishes the Court to reimburse him for one of the action’s court fees as he now only has one

action pending. 

A fee for the initiation of an action is assessed by every district court in the United States. 

Here, Plaintiff seeks reimbursement because two separately filed actions were transferred to the

same court and ultimately consolidated because they contained the same claims. However, this

Court, nor the Northern or Central District inappropriately overcharged Plaintiff as he contends. 

Plaintiff elected to file the same action in two separate districts thereby causing an assessment of

two separate fees. Accordingly, he is not entitled to reimbursement and the Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 36 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2