Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00981/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00981-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAROYA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-CV-05981-AWI-SMS-P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SEQUENTIAL FEE COLLECTION

(Doc. 14)

 Carlos Hendon (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 15, 2006, plaintiff filed

a motion challenging the current 20% per month deduction from his trust account pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Plaintiff requests that the total deduction from his trust account, for all his

cases, not exceed 20% and further that the filing fees for each case be paid off sequentially. 

Plaintiff argues that the current method of fee collection is unconstitutional in that an inmate

could potentially have 100% of his income taken if he has multiple lawsuits.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in

forma pauperis, the prison is required deduct 20% of the preceding month’s income, regardless

of the amount of his monthly income or of the amount in his account at the time of the deduction. 

28 U. S. C. § 1915(b)(2). Although plaintiff might find the situation undesirable, prison officials

Case 1:05-cv-00981-SMS Document 17 Filed 06/11/07 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

2

are not incorrect in deducting 20% of the preceding month’s income for multiple cases. As

plaintiff notes, there is a split of authority within the Circuit Courts of Appeal as to the manner in

which prisoners are required to pay filing fees under § 1915(b)(2). Hendon v. Ramsey, 478

F.Supp.2d 1214, 1217 (S.D.Cal.2007). The Ninth Circuit has not decided the issue. 

Based on the language of the statute, which this court has found unambiguous, the court

has ordered the Director of the California Department of Corrections or his designee to collect

payments from plaintiff’s prison trust account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the

preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s trust account and to forward those payments

to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. The court finds no

basis to modify this order. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00981-SMS Document 17 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 2