U.S. v. El Dorado County, 2:07-cv-2259 KJM KJN P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141030916
Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 30, 2011, judgment was entered for defendant. (ECF No. 96.) On June 1, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal. (ECF No. 110.) Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for clarification of filing fees. (ECF No. 109.) Plaintiff alleges that the California Department of Corrections and Reha
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 30, 2011, judgment was entered for defendant. (ECF No. 96.) On June 1, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal. (ECF No. 110.) Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for clarification of filing fees. (ECF No. 109.) Plaintiff alleges that the California Department of Corrections and Rehab..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 30, 2011, judgment was entered for defendant. (ECF No. 96.) On June 1, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal. (ECF No. 110.)
Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for clarification of filing fees. (ECF No. 109.) Plaintiff alleges that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") has incorrectly deducted $1260 in filing fees for this action from plaintiff's trust account. Plaintiff alleges that he only owes the $350 filing fee.
Attached as an exhibit to plaintiff's pending motion is a document titled "Inmate Obligations Report." (Id. at 14.) This document indicates that plaintiff was charged the $350 filing fee and two $455 filing fees for each of the two appeals he filed during the course of this action. (Id.) Therefore, plaintiff was properly charged $1260 in filing fees for this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for clarification of filing fees (ECF No. 109) is deemed resolved.
Source: Leagle
