Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02222/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02222-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hawkins
Defendant
Bernard L. Smith
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BERNARD L. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HAWKINS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2222-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a motion to use a fictitious name. He also requests 

reimbursement of the filing fee in other, closed and dismissed cases. ECF No. 24. As explained 

below, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

Plaintiff asks that the court rename “its databank of cases published under the name of 

Bernard L. Smith [to just] Smith.” ECF No. 24. He asserts that the court is violating his right to 

privacy and safety by using his full name to identify cases which may reveal information about 

his medical status. However, the very nature of plaintiff’s allegations regarding his medical 

condition asserted in this and the other civil rights actions necessarily place plaintiff’s medical 

condition at issue. If plaintiff believes that his circumstances warrant he may, if he wishes, file an 

appropriate motion for a protective order in accordance with Local Rule 141.1. Plaintiff is 

admonished however, that a protective order would merely govern the parties’ use of protected 

Case 2:14-cv-02222-KJM-EFB Document 34 Filed 10/08/15 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

information and would not result in the sealing of any pleadings or exhibits filed in this action. 

Unless otherwise ordered by the court, all information provided to the court in a specific action is 

presumptively public. E.D. Cal. Local Rule (“Local Rule”) 141.1(a)(1). Any motion for a 

sealing order must be directed to the district judge assigned to this case and must be filed in 

conformance with Local Rule 141 and shall address the legal standards applicable to such a 

motion. See Press-Enterprises Co. v. Superior Court of Riverside County, 464 U.S. 501, 509 

(1984); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Plaintiff also asks seeks “reimbursement” of the filing fees he has paid in “closed and 

dismissed cases,” claiming that he should not be assessed any portion of the filing fee if his case 

gets dismissed. The request must be denied. Regardless of the results of his complaints, plaintiff 

remains obligated to pay the entire filing fee “in increments,” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 

1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015). This is so even if his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Under the PLRA, 

all prisoners who file IFP civil actions must pay the full amount of the filing fee.”). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 18, 2015 motion (ECF No. 

24) is denied. 

DATED: October 8, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02222-KJM-EFB Document 34 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2