United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS (DKT. 44, 45,
46, 48 and 49)
A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge
Earl Ira Bowman has filed numerous motions with the Court.
For the reasons stated herein, the motions are denied.
Motion to Add to Complaint - Dkt. 44
motion, plaintiff “wants the Court to know” that
he is being denied legal supplies and case law. Dkt. 44, at
1. Plaintiff has failed to provide a proposed amended
complaint. He instead lists additions he wants to make to his
original complaint in his motion. This is not in compliance
with LCR 15, which provides as follows:
A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading, or who seeks
to amend a pleading by stipulation and order, must attach a
copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the
motion or stipulation. The party must indicate on the
proposed amended pleading how it differs from the pleading
that it amends by bracketing or striking through the text to
be deleted and underlining or highlighting the text to be
added. The proposed amended pleading must not incorporate by
reference any part of the preceding pleading, including
exhibits. If a motion or stipulation for leave to amend is
granted, the party whose pleading was amended must file and
serve the amended pleading on all parties within fourteen
(14) days of the filing of the order granting leave to amend,
unless the court orders otherwise.
must therefore attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading
as an exhibit to his motion. In addition, the proposed
amended complaint must stand on its own without reference to
the original complaint. It is not possible for the Court or
the defendants to fully respond to plaintiff's motion
without seeing his proposed amended complaint. For this
reason, his motion “to add to complaint” (Dkt.
44) is denied.
Motion for Discovery - Dkt. 45
“motion, ” plaintiff requests discovery from
defendants. Dkt. 45. Discovery requests are not filed with
the Court but are exchanged between the parties. Counsel for
defendants states in her declaration that the discovery
requested by plaintiff has been provided. Dkt. 47. Therefore,
this motion (Dkt. 45) is denied.
Motion to Exempt Funds - Dkt. 46
was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), on March
29, 2016. Dkt. 9 (the “IFP Order”). The IFP Order
provides that, after an initial partial filing fee is
collected, plaintiff is required to pay 20 percent of the
preceding month's income credited to his account until
the full amount of the filing fee is paid. Id. In
this motion, plaintiff asks the Court to order the Department
of Corrections (DOC) to refrain from taking funds from his
account to pay the filing fee until his case is over. He
claims that the IFP Order is inhibiting his ability to
purchase envelopes, stamps, and writing paper needed to
prosecute his case. Dkt. 46. Plaintiff does not state whether
he has asked for and has been denied these items or whether
he has not been allowed to charge these items to his account.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not provide any authority or
mechanism for the Court to waive the payment of a
plaintiff's filing fee or to return the filing fee after
dismissal of an action. “Filing fees are part of the
costs of litigation.” Lucien v. DeTella, 141
F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir.1998). Prisoner cases are no
exception. See Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260, 261-62
(2d Cir.2001) (inmates who proceeded pro se and in forma
pauperis were not entitled to refund of appellate fees
or to cancellation of indebtedness for unpaid appellate fees
after they withdrew their appeals). In fact, “[a]
congressional objective in enacting the [Prisoner Litigation
Reform Act] was to ‘mak[e] all prisoners seeking to
bring lawsuits or appeals feel the deterrent effect created
by liability for filing fees.'” Goins, 241
F.3d at 261.
Court is unaware of any authority allowing the suspension of
a prisoner's obligation to repay the filing fee during
the pendency of a lawsuit. Moreover, the Supreme Court has
stated that “[i]t is indisputable that indigent inmates
must be provided at state expense with paper and pen to draft
legal documents, with notarial services to authenticate them,
and with stamps to mail them.” Bounds v.
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824-25 (1977). Thus, even if 20
percent of plaintiff's income is recouped for filing
fees, he will not be denied access to paper, writing
instruments, or postage because the government is required to
provide these materials to indigent inmates. Moreover,
plaintiff has not shown that his access to courts has been
impaired by the IFP Order. In fact, plaintiff has filed
numerous motions in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
motion for a suspension of the IFP Order (Dkt. 46) is denied.
Motion for Order to Bring Legal Documents to ...