Court Opinion

ID: 9840943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 19:02:51.762964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:53.014965
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         SEP 20 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH GIBBS,                                   No. 22-16698

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:21-cv-02188-TLN-AC

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
A. HERRERA; B. McCRARY; E.
ENRIQUEZ; R. NAPPEN,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                     Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Kenneth Gibbs appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

of discretion a dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee. Taylor v. Delatoore, 281

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). We vacate and remand.

      The district court dismissed Gibbs’s action for failure to pay the filing fee.

However, Gibbs contends that he sent the requisite payment in the form of two

checks that were cashed by the district court on May 5, 2022. Although there is no

record of this payment on the district court docket, in response to the magistrate

judge’s May 10, 2022 order to pay the filing fee, Gibbs submitted a note from the

prison trust office confirming that his checks to the district court were sent and

subsequently cashed on May 5, 2022. Further, Gibbs attached to his objections to

the findings and recommendations an additional statement from the prison trust

office confirming that the district court cashed both checks on May 5, 2022. These

documents support Gibbs’s contention that he complied with the district court’s

order to pay the filing fee. Because neither the magistrate judge in its findings and

recommendations nor the district judge in its order of dismissal addressed these

documents, we vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to consider

these documents in the first instance.

      All pending requests are denied.

      VACATED and REMANDED.

                                          2                                    22-16698