Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02483/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02483-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 1

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD ANDREW WHITE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-2483 LEW JFM P 

vs.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

By order filed January 25, 2008, petitioner was granted thirty days in which to file

an amended petition or civil rights complaint to clarify the nature of the relief he seeks. 

Petitioner has now filed an amended complaint. Although not entirely clear, it appears petitioner

seeks to vacate prior court orders requiring the payment of filing fees and remove holds on his

prison trust accounts. Plaintiff refers to three cases filed in this district: F-07-1204 AWI WMW

P, 07-1218 LKK GGH P, and CIV S-07-1743 LKK DAD P. As noted in this court’s earlier 1

order, court records reflect that petitioner was assessed the $350.00 filing fee in Case Nos. F-07-

Case 2:07-cv-02483-JAM -JFM Document 10 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) requires courts to impose the filing fee: “Notwithstanding 2

subsection (a), if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner

shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” Id. 

 “Seven circuits have addressed the related issue of whether requiring prisoners to pay 3

fees violates a prisoner's access to the courts. See Tucker v. Branker, 142 F.3d 1294, 1297

(D.C.Cir.1998); Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, (7th Cir.1998); Shabazz v. Parsons, 127 F.3d

1246, 1248-49 (10th Cir.1997); Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 289-91 (5th Cir.1997);

Nicholas v. Tucker, 114 F.3d 17, 21 (2d Cir.1997); Roller v. Gunn, 107 F.3d 227, 231- 33 (4th

Cir.1997); Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281, 1284-86 (6th Cir.1997). All seven have held that

requiring prisoners to pay a filing fee does not deny a prisoner effective access to the courts.” 

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999).

2

1204 AWI WMW P and 07-1218 LKK GGH P. In CIV S-07-1743 LKK DAD P, petitioner’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and the action was dismissed based on failure to

exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing in federal court. It does not appear petitioner was

assessed the filing fee in Case No. CIV S-07-1743 LKK DAD P.

Petitioner is advised that this court does not have supervisory authority over the

judges who directed the filing fee be assessed. Accordingly, petitioner must file any request for 2

reimbursement or request to vacate such a filing fee order in the case in which the order assessing

the filing fee was issued. Because petitioner’s request to be compensated for the filing fees

imposed in the cases recited above fails to state a cognizable civil rights claim pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.

To the extent plaintiff contends the imposition of the filing fee is unconstitutional,

plaintiff’s claim fails as well. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) “certainly passes

constitutional muster.” Madrid v. Gomez, 190 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The PLRA has a

rational basis and does not violate indigent prisoners' equal protection rights by requiring them,

unlike nonincarcerated indigents, to prepay court filing fees; Act's filing fee provisions rationally

address problem of excessive and frivolous prisoner lawsuits, and inmates are not suspect class

so as to require more exacting scrutiny. Nicholas v. Tucker, 114 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 1997), cert.

denied sub nom, Nicholas v. Miller, 523 U.S. 1126, 118 S.Ct. 1812 (1998); see also Roller v.

Gunn, 107 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 874, 118 S.Ct. 192 (1997).3

Case 2:07-cv-02483-JAM -JFM Document 10 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 22, 2008.

/001; whit2483.56

Case 2:07-cv-02483-JAM -JFM Document 10 Filed 02/25/08 Page 3 of 3