Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01248-3/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.

CALDERON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01248-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 15)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SCAN THE LODGED PROPOSED SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY

TO MAKE THE RECORD COMPLETE

(Doc. 16) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SEQUENTIAL FEE COLLECTION

(Doc. 17)

I. Order

A. Motion to Amend

Plaintiff Carlos Hendon (“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 July 11, 2006, plaintiff filed an

amended complaint. On October 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend and a

proposed second amended complaint.

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and the court can discern no basis for the need to

amend. Plaintiff asserts that he is requesting leave to amend “making corrections. 1. All and

additional paragraphs of the parties, all and additional paragraphs of the allegations, all and

Case 1:05-cv-01248-LJO -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/15/07 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

27

28 The court takes judicial notice of the fact that plaintiff has filed eleven civil actions in this district, thus 1

subjecting him to the collection of filing fees in multiple actions.

2

additional paragraphs of the claims for relief, and all and additional paragraphs of the relief

requested, are amended to reflect the events.” (Doc. 15.) The court is at a loss as to why plaintiff

is seeking leave to amend. Further, the court has compared the proposed second amended complaint

with the first amended complaint and the complaints appear to be identical. To the extent that there

is any difference at all between the complaints, the difference is so subtle that is has eluded the court.

Because plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint is identical to his first amended complaint

and his motion seeking leave to amend sheds no light on the reason plaintiff is attempting to amend,

the motion is denied. 

B. Motion for Sequential Collection of Filing Fee

On December 15, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking relief from being assessed any

additional fees for this action, entitled “Motion for Sequential Fee Collection.” Plaintiff asserts that

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation assesses a fee of 20% of an inmate’s

monthly income for each case filed, so if an inmate files five cases, the fee assessments equal 100%

of his monthly income.1

CDCR is merely following statutory mandate. If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, the prisoner is “required to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the

preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). This court

cannot and will not relieve plaintiff of an obligation that is mandated by law. The court notes that

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that the filing fee provisions of section

1915 do not violate inmates’ right of access to the courts or their right to equal protection of the

laws. Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 851 (9th Cir. 2002). The court further notes that to the

extent plaintiff wishes to raise a challenge on different constitutional grounds, he must do so in a

new lawsuit and may not do so in this suit. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01248-LJO -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/15/07 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

27

28

3

C. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend, filed October 26, 2006, is DENIED;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall scan plaintiff’s lodged second amended complaint so that

the court’s record is complete; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for sequential fee collection, filed December 15, 2006, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01248-LJO -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/15/07 Page 3 of 3