Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01262/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01262-4/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

GIFT A. Z. DIVINE ALLAH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01262-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER ADDRESSING OBJECTION TO

FILING FEE AND FINDING IT TO BE

WITHOUT MERIT 

(Doc. 10)

ORDER DISREGARDING NOTICE

CONCERNING EXHAUSTION 

(Doc. 11)

ORDER STRIKING NOTICE FROM RECORD

(Doc. 15)

Plaintiff Gift A. Z. Divine Allah (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 10, 2006, the

court granted plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and notified plaintiff that

the filing fee for this action is $350.00. On November 8, 2006, plaintiff filed an objection.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), the filing fee for this action is $350.00. The California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provides certain forms, obtained from the court, to

inmates as a courtesy. The fact that the form provided to plaintiff at the prison was out of date in

that it stated the filing fee for this action was $150.00 is not grounds for relief from paying the

statutorily mandated $350.00 filing fee. Plaintiff’s objection is without merit. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01262-OWW -GSA Document 22 Filed 01/16/07 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 The Clerk’s Office erroneously docketed the filing as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 1

2

On November 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice regarding exhaustion. Exhaustion is an

affirmative defense that must be raised by defendants. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th

Cir. 2003). It is unnecessary for plaintiff to notify the court regarding his efforts to exhaust. In the

event that this action proceeds forward and defendants file a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust,

plaintiff may at that time submit evidence in opposition to the motion. Id. at 1119-20. Any response

concerning exhaustion prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss is premature. Plaintiff’s notice shall

therefore be disregarded.

Finally, on November 27, 2006, plaintiff filed an untitled document that appears intended to

serve as a notice to certain individuals that they are being sued. The filing is not one recognized 1

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules, and serves no purpose other than to

clutter the court’s docket. The filing shall be stricken from the record.

Based on the foregoing, (1) plaintiff’s objection to the $350.00 filing fee is FOUND TO BE

WITHOUT MERIT, (2) plaintiff’s notice concerning exhaustion is HEREBY DISREGARDED, and

(3) plaintiff’s notice filed on November 27, 2006, is HEREBY STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01262-OWW -GSA Document 22 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 2