(PC) Sykes v. Rios
1:24-cv-01401
E.D. Cal.
Dec 4, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Samuel “Dickey” Davis died testate in 2013, devising Armentrout Farm to his spouse, Rae Lee Mills [lines="17-18"].
  2. Rae Lee claimed that Garnet Davis, Jr., the Executor of Dickey’s Estate, failed to exonerate Armentrout Farm of its mortgage before it passed to her [lines="20-21"].
  3. The circuit court ruled that Dickey's will did not express a clear intent to overcome the statutory presumption of nonexoneration under Code § 64.2-531(A) [lines="22-24"].
  4. The Estate sold property from Dickey's estate to satisfy debts, but did not exonerate the mortgage on Armentrout Farm, leaving Rae Lee with the mortgage burden [lines="124-132"].
  5. The Commissioner of Accounts initially ruled in Rae Lee's favor, but the circuit court later reversed this decision [lines="141-150"].

Issues

  1. Whether Dickey's will clearly expressed a contrary intent to the presumption of nonexoneration for the Armentrout Farm mortgage as required by Code § 64.2-531(A) [lines="34-37"].
  2. Whether the circuit court misinterpreted the statutory requirement related to the clarity of the intent stated in the will [lines="167-168"].

Holdings

  1. The court affirmed that Dickey's will did not clearly set out a contrary intent necessary to overcome the presumption of nonexoneration; general directives in the will were insufficient [lines="163-164"].
  2. The court upheld that the requirement for a contrary intent to be “clearly set out” does not necessitate an explicit directive, but Dickey's language was still too general to satisfy this requirement [lines="421-424"].

OPINION

TERRANCE SYKES, JR., Plaintiff, v. M. RIOS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01401-HBK (PC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

December 4, 2024

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION TO IGNORE FILING FEE PAYMENT REQUIREMENT (Doc. No. 4)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff‘s “Motion in Equity to Ignore Filing Fee Requirements for Attached Bivens Civil Rights Complaint” filed November 15, 2024. (Doc. No. 7, “Motion“). Plaintiff‘s Motion numbers 54 pages plus an additional 33 pages of exhibits. (See id.). Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding on his pro se complaint filed pursuant to . (Doc. No. 1). On November 15, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $405.00 filing fee. (Doc. No. 3).

In his Motion, Plaintiff recites at length facts pertaining to his arrest and prosecution in New York State more than 20 years ago and contends that he is being wrongly detained following a fraudulent prosecution and illegal sentencing. (See generally Doc. No. 4). Plaintiff argues that he is being “falsely and illegally detained in the defendant(s) custody through a straw man1 and without any judgment issuing from a court of justice to the defendant(s) to execute against his natural person, and he is therefore not a prisoner for Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) purposes . . .” (Id. at 2). Liberally construed, Plaintiff asserts that under general equity principles he should be exempt from the filing fee and IFP requirements of the PLRA because his incarceration is illegitimate.2

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff‘s “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” Under the PLRA, despite being granted in forma pauperis status, all prisoners must pay the full amount of the fee. Id. 1915(b)(1). Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) states a prisoner plaintiff proceeding IFP “shall be required to pay the full amount of the filing fee.” Notably, Plaintiff cites no apposite case law supporting his request to exempt from the PLRA‘s requirements and the undersigned is unaware of any binding precedent requiring this Court to waive the statutory filing fee.3

The Court has not yet conducted a screening of Plaintiff‘s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to determine whether the operative complaint is deficient, appropriate for service, or requires further amendment. Consequently, to the extent Plaintiff does not wish to pay the filing fee for this action, Plaintiff may choose to voluntarily dismiss this action before the Court conducts its § 1915A screening. To voluntarily dismiss this action, Plaintiff must file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41,4 and advise the Court that he wishes to dismiss this action.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

  1. Plaintiff‘s Motion to Ignore Filing Fee Payment Requirements (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED.
  2. No later than December 20, 2024, Plaintiff must either pay the $405.00 filing fee or submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff may use the application to proceed in forma pauperis provided with the Court‘s November 15, 2024 Order.
  3. If Plaintiff no longer wishes to litigate this action, he may file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
  4. If Plaintiff fails to either pay the $405.00 filing fee or submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned will recommend the District Court dismiss the action as a sanction for Plaintiff‘s failure to prosecute and comply with court orders consistent with Local Rule 110.

Dated: December 4, 2024

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Notes

1
The Court notes that Plaintiff appears to be utilizing language and concepts embraced by the sovereign citizen conspiracy theory, which generally refutes the legitimacy of government institutions and believes that a “straw man” is created for each citizen, separate and apart from their natural person, as part of a secret government takeover. See, e.g., , report and recommendation adopted sub nom. ; see also , report and recommendation adopted, (collecting cases and noting that the “Redemptionist” theory adopted by sovereign citizen ideology is a “frivolous legal theory that has been rejected by countless federal courts“).
2
To the extent Plaintiff challenges the fact of his confinement, he must file a habeas corpus petition, instead of a civil complaint.
3
A preliminary review of prior cases filed by Plaintiff in the Western District of New York, Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Northern District of West Virginia, indicates Plaintiff may be ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis due to his three strike status under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
4
A party may voluntarily terminate an action by operation of law without order from the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Read the detailed case summary