Hollis vs. Blathers, et al.
Filing
6
ORDER DENYING Motion for Structured Payment Plan 5 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/8/11. (Hellings, J)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
MICHAEL EUGENE HOLLIS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BLATHERS, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
1:11-cv-00741-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STRUCTURED PAYMENT PLAN
(Doc. 5.)
17
Michael Eugene Hollis (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
18
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action
19
on May 10, 2011. (Doc. 1.)
20
On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for a
21
specified payment plan. Plaintiff requests a structured payment plan to enable him to pay the filing fees
22
he owes for five pending court actions without paying out 100% of the funds available in his prison trust
23
account each month.
24
Plaintiff’s schedule for payment of his filing fees is governed by statute, and the Court is not
25
authorized to structure payment plans specific to a plaintiff’s particular circumstances. 28 U.S.C. §
26
1915(b). Plaintiff is advised that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Smart
27
v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114 (9th Cir. 1965), certiorari denied 382 U.S. 896, 86 S.Ct. 192. “The Ninth
28
1
1
Circuit has found that ‘[b]ecause prisoners are in the custody of the state and accordingly have the
2
‘essentials of life’ provided by the government,’ even the most indigent prisoner subject to the
3
cumulative collection of filing fees required by § 1915(b) will not be ‘required to make choices between
4
his lawsuit and the necessities of life.’ ” Hendon v. Ramsey, 478 R.Supp.2d 1214, 1220 (S.D.Cal. 2007)
5
(quoting Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 2002.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be
6
denied.
7
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a structured payment plan,
filed on June 7, 2011, is DENIED.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Dated:
6i0kij
June 8, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
