Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gilmore v. USP Victorville

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 9, 2015

ERRICK EUGENE GILMORE, Plaintiff,
v.
USP VICTORVILLE, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE

ANDREW J. GUILFORD, District Judge.

On September 19, 2013, Plaintiff Errick Eugene Gilmore, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this Bivens[1] civil rights action against various officers at the United States Penitentiary in Victorville, California, where he was previously incarcerated.[2] ECF No. 3. Plaintiff alleges the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by assaulting him and acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See ECF No. 28 at 1-2.

On September 27, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). ECF No. 2. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee ("initial fee") equal to 20 percent of his monthly deposits for "the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint."[3] 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Based on deposits of $344.27 in Plaintiff's prison trust account during the preceding six months, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial fee of $68.00 within 30 days. See ECF No. 1 at 5; ECF No. 2.

On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for a one-year extension of time to pay the initial fee. ECF No. 10. On November 4, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for a one-year extension, but granted him 30 days' additional time to pay the initial fee. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff then filed a motion for leave to appeal the denial of his one-year extension request, which the Court denied. ECF Nos. 30, 37.

Plaintiff proceeded to make five more requests for extensions of time to pay the initial fee, each of which the Court granted. ECF Nos. 39, 46, 49, 63, 72. Most recently, on December 16, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff until March 6, 2015, to pay the initial fee. ECF No. 72. On February 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for yet another extension of time to pay the initial fee. ECF No. 78. The Court denied the motion. ECF No. 79.

On March 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed an eighth motion for extension of time to pay the initial fee, requesting an additional 90 days. ECF No. 84. Plaintiff stated the initial fee had not been paid because "[n]o order on this case has been served [on] the Bureau of Prisons to take money out to pay... my Court costs."[4] Id. at 1. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's motion. ECF No. 85. The Court found Plaintiff's alleged excuse that "[n]o order... has been served [on] the Bureau of Prisons" lacked merit, explaining: "It is not this Court's responsibility to arrange for the payment of Plaintiff's long-overdue initial filing fee. Rather, that is Plaintiff's responsibility alone." Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the initial fee of $68.00 "immediately upon receipt of this Order." Id. The Court did not receive any payment.

On April 6, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to timely pay the initial fee. ECF No. 86. On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC, again faulting the Court for failing to send an order to the Bureau of Prisons to take Plaintiff's money to pay the fee. ECF No. 87 at 2. Along with his response, Plaintiff provided the Court a recent prison trust account statement, dated April 15, 2015. Id. at 4. According to the statement, Plaintiff received deposits totaling $136.00 over the previous six months. Id. at 8.

On April 30, 2015, the Court issued an Order reiterating "for the last time that it is Plaintiff's responsibility, not the Court's, to send the Court the initial fee." ECF No. 88 at 2. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court recalculated Plaintiff's initial fee because of the amount of time that lapsed since the original calculation and because of the decrease in Plaintiff's deposits since the original calculation. Id. Thus, based upon the recent six-month deposit amount of $136.00, the Court reduced the initial fee from $68.00 to $27.00. Id. at 3. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the new initial fee of $27.00 by May 30, 2015, and warned him that if he did not pay it by that date, the Court would dismiss this case. Id. As of this date, Plaintiff has not paid any portion of the initial fee.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.