Diaz v. Inch

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided May 26, 2021·No. 1:19-cv-23954·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 19-cv-23954-BLOOM SCOTTY SANTOS DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants. / ORDER ON MOTION TO ENFORCE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Scotty Santos Diaz’s Notice to Enforce Courts[’] Orders Granting Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(B), (“Motion”), ECF No. [32]. The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied. Plaintiff states that he was previously granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status in the following cases: No. 19-cv-24067-UU; No. 19-cv-23954-BB; No. 20-cv-23889-BB. See ECF No. [32] at 2. To that end, the Court ordered the Clerk to establish a debt of $350.00 for each of the

three cases. Id. Plaintiff states that on February 21, 2021, $2,500.00 was deposited into his inmate trust account. Id. at 4. On that date, Plaintiff had a lien on his account in the amount of $1,136.04 for filing fees in the three above-mentioned cases. Id. at 5. In his Motion, Plaintiff lodges two complaints: (1) the Defendants/Florida Department of Corrections (“FDOC”) incorrectly placed liens in the amount of $400.00 for Case Nos. 19-cv-24067 and 19-cv-23954; (2) Defendants/FDOC incorrectly deducted the entire lien amount from his account instead of deducting 20 percent of the account balance per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). See id. Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendants/FDOC to adhere to the procedures of § 1915(b) and reimburse his trust account the amount he was overcharged, $736.04. See ECF No. [32] at 5. The Court, however, has carefully reviewed the Motion and the record in each of the three

cases and finds that the FDOC’s deductions are consistent with the Court’s prior orders. See Diaz v. Inch, No. 19-cv-23954-BB (S.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2019), ECF No. [8] at 3 (granting motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, establishing a debt of $350, and authorizing deductions from Plaintiff’s prisoner account until the full filing fee is paid); Diaz v. Inch, No. 20-cv-23889-BB (S.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2020), ECF No. [6] at 3 (same); Diaz v. Centurion of Fla., LLC, No. 19-cv- 24067-UU (S.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2019), ECF No. [7] at 3 (same). To the extent Plaintiff is claiming that the debt the FDOC established toward the three cases exceeds the amount actually owed, pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 33-203.201(11), Plaintiff “must submit a Form DC6-236, Inmate Request, no later than sixty days after the first statement on which the problem or error

appeared.” Id. (outlining the procedures inmates shall adhere to “if an inmate thinks the statement is wrong, or if additional information is needed about a transaction[.]”); see also Fla. Admin. Code. Ann. r. 33-103.002(12). Accordingly, to obtain review of his complaint, Plaintiff is advised to file an Inmate Request on the proper form within the time period expressly allotted. The Court also notes that Plaintiff is incorrect in his claim that, pursuant to § 1915(b), the FDOC was entitled to deduct only 20 percent of the balance of his trust account. After the initial filing fee, “the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account.” § 1915(b)(2). The “monthly installment payments, like the initial partial payment, are to be assessed on a per-case basis.” Bruce v. Samuels, Case No. 19-cv-23954-BLOOM

577 U.S. 82, 85 (2016). Thus, the FDOC was authorized to deduct monthly installment payments of 20 percent of the account balance as to each of Plaintiff's three filing fees. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [32], is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 25, 2021.

BETHBLOOM ———“‘“COCSC UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record Scotty Santos Diaz, Pro Se # 670614 Dade Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels 19000 SW 377th Street Florida City, FL 33034

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Diaz v. Inch, (S.D. Fla. 2021).

Diaz v. Inch (Diaz v. Inch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bruce v. Samuels
577 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 2016)