AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Filing Fees
An Oklahoma prisoner sued several state prison officials in state court, qualifying to proceed as a pauper under state law. The defendants then removed the case to federal court and paid a required federal filing fee. The trial court then ruled that the plaintiff, who had previously abused the federal courts by filing frivolous lawsuits, was not eligible to proceed as a pauper and dismissed his case because he failed to pay the filing fee. A federal appeals court reversed, holding that state-court plaintiffs whose cases are removed to federal court have no obligation to pay a filing fee since nothing in the applicable federal statute on proceeding as a pauper said anything to the contrary. Woodson v. McCollum, #17-6064, 875 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2017).
An indigent state prisoner who filed
lawsuits as a pauper owed a filing fee of $350 to a federal trial court and
$505 to a federal appeals court. He asserted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2) only
mandated that there be a monthly 20% deduction for the filing fees until both
fees were paid, and that the deductions should be used to pay off the two
filing fees in the order in which they were incurred. The government, in
opposition, argued that there should be a 20% deduction for each filing fee
owed, or 40% a month, with half being used to pay each fee. A federal appeals
court upheld the prisoner's position, ordering that only 20% of his account be
deducted each month to pay off the two filing fees in sequential recoupment.
Siluk v. Merwin, #11-3996, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 5824 (3rd Cir.).
A plaintiff prisoner
who filed three separate lawsuits against prison officials had his status of
proceeding as a pauper revoked because he had received around $6,000 in
past-due Social Security benefits that he had not reported to the court. That
revocation was improper, however, since the federal No Social Security Benefits
for Prisoners Act of 2009, 42 U.S.C. 404(a)(1)(B)(ii), barred him from
accessing those funds while incarcerated, so he could not have used them to pay
filing fees. The fact that he later, after the complaints were filed, also
received separate deposits totaling $350 into his prisoner trust account and
spent $243.11 of the money on consumer goods (which were arguably not
necessities) rather than filing fees did not alter the result. He was only
required to report his available assets at the time that he filed the lawsuits
to qualify to proceed as a pauper, and his later receipt of additional funds
did not render him ineligible. There was no indication that he did not make the
required installment payments of 20% of the income in his trust account in the
months he received the additional deposits. Arzuaga v. Quiros, #13-4586, 2015
U.S. App. Lexis 4544 (2nd Cir.).
A Louisiana state statute providing for an
automatic stay on lawsuits filed by indigent prisoners until all court costs
are paid did not violate equal protection of law or unconstitutionally bar the
prisoner's right of access to the courts. Court rules that the statute applies
both to new lawsuits filed and those pending at the date of its enactment.
Rhone v. Ward, No. 39,701, 902 So. 2d 1258 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Idaho state statute requiring prisoners to pay
civil lawsuit filing fees when they have funds to do so is not an
unconstitutional denial of access to the courts. Trial court, however, should
not have dismissed prisoner's lawsuit for failure to pay a filing fee, as his
inmate account statement showed a negative balance, which, if true, meant he
should not be required to pay the fee until he had funds to do so. Madison v.
Craven, No. 30605, 105 P.3d 705 (Idaho App. 2005). [N/R]
Massachusetts inmate's lawsuit against prison
superintendent and the Commissioner of Corrections was properly dismissed for
his failure to pay a reduced filing fee of $25 ordered by the trial court.
Despite the fact that his account had been frozen to pay his restitution, a
state statute required the prison superintendent to disburse funds for such
costs to the court for inmates claiming to be indigent, and the plaintiff
failed to submit a written request to the superintendent for such payment.
Cepulonis v. Superintendent, Mass. Corr., #03-P-1452, 813 N.E.2d 882 (Mass.
App. Ct. 2004). [N/R]
Louisiana prisoner's lawsuit seeking damages and
injunctive relief concerning alleged improper retaliation against him for
challenging the results of a disciplinary hearing would be stayed until all
accrued filing fees and costs are paid, since there was no indication that he
was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. Nichols v. Cain, 871 So. 2d
654 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Wisconsin inmate incarcerated in an out-of-state
facility was not a "prisoner" eligible under Wisconsin state statute
for a waiver of court costs and filing fees and his claim for further review of
denial of his request for a change in his security status and transfer to a
lower security facility therefore could not be pursued. State Ex. Rel. Labine
v. Puckett, No. 02-2642-W, 676 N.W.2d 424 (Wis. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's application to proceed in his lawsuit
against prison officials as a pauper without the payment of filing fees was
properly denied when the record failed to support his application, but under
Nebraska state law, the trial court acted improperly in then dismissing the
lawsuit, since the prisoner was entitled to a 30 day period within which he
could decide to proceed with the lawsuit and pay the filing fee and costs.
Martin v. McGinn, 657 N.W.2d 217 (Neb. 2003). [N/R]
A prisoner who was allowed under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a)(1), (b)(1,2) to make
installment payments on litigation filing fees had no obligation to pay the
remaining balance of the fee upon his release from prison. The released
prisoners' obligations, if any, to pay filing fees would be determined by the
general legal rules about proceeding as a pauper, not the special terms imposed
on prisoners under the PLRA. DeBlasio v. Gilmore, #01-7025, 315 F.3d 396 (4th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
The filing fee provision of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915, does not require several prisoners who joined
together to file a single lawsuit as paupers to each pay the full filing fee.
Burke v. Helman, 208 F.R.D. 246 (C.D. Ill. 2002). [N/R]
296:120 Man
confined in a state mental hospital based on a finding of not guilty by reason
of insanity was not a "prisoner" for purposes of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act's filing fee or "three strikes" rules; no rule prohibited
him from pursuing federal civil rights claim himself rather than through his
court-appointed guardian. Kolocotronis v. Morgan, No. 01-1308WM, 247 F.3d 726
(8th Cir. 2001).
[N/R] Prisoner's
claims against jail nurse were properly dismissed due to his failure to pay
costs of a previous suit. Esposito v. Piatrowski, No. 99-3011, 223 F.3d 497
(7th Cir. 2000).