Juaquez S. Johnson v. United States, Government, Official Capacity; City of Omaha, Government, Official Capacity; Nebraska Public Defender, Government, Official Capacity; and Jami Jacobs, Public Defender, Official Capacity
This text of Juaquez S. Johnson v. United States, Government, Official Capacity; City of Omaha, Government, Official Capacity; Nebraska Public Defender, Government, Official Capacity; and Jami Jacobs, Public Defender, Official Capacity (Juaquez S. Johnson v. United States, Government, Official Capacity; City of Omaha, Government, Official Capacity; Nebraska Public Defender, Government, Official Capacity; and Jami Jacobs, Public Defender, Official Capacity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JUAQUEZ S JOHNSON,
Plaintiff, 8:25CV675
vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER UNITED STATES, Government, Official Capacity; CITY OF OMAHA, Government, Official Capacity; NEBRASKA PUBLIC DEFENDER, Government, Official Capacity; and JAMI JACOBS, Public Defender, Official Capacity;
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), Filing No. 2, and what the Court construes as a Motion for Summons, Filing No. 5. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff is permitted to proceed IFP and his Motion for Summons will be denied as premature. I. IFP MOTION Plaintiff filed a request to proceed IFP with his Complaint. The Court has received a copy of Plaintiff’s trust account information, Filing No. 8, and finds that Plaintiff may proceed IFP. Prisoner plaintiffs are required to pay the full amount of the Court’s $350.00 filing fee by making monthly payments to the Court, even if the prisoner is proceeding IFP. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The Prison Litigation Reform Act “makes prisoners responsible for their filing fees the moment the prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal.” In re Tyler, 110 F.3d 528, 529–30 (8th Cir. 1997); Jackson v. N.P. Dodge Realty Co., 173 F. Supp. 2d 951 (D. Neb. 2001). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee in the amount of 20 percent of the greater of Plaintiff’s average monthly account balance or average monthly deposits for the six months preceding the filing of the Complaint. Here, the Court finds the initial partial filing fee is $3.46, based on average monthly deposits in the amount of $17.31. Plaintiff must pay this initial partial filing fee within 30
days or his case will be subject to dismissal. Plaintiff may request an extension of time if one is needed. In addition to the initial partial filing fee, Plaintiff must “make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The statute places the burden on the prisoner’s institution to collect the additional monthly payments and forward them to the Court as follows: After payment of the initial partial 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. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner’s account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Therefore, after payment in full of the initial partial filing fee, Plaintiff’s institution must collect the remaining installments of the filing fee and forward the payments to the Court. Plaintiff is advised he will remain responsible for the entire filing fee, as long as he is a prisoner, even if the case is dismissed at some later time. See In re Tyler, 110 F.3d at 529–30; Jackson, 173 F. Supp. 2d at 951. II. MOTION FOR SUMMONS With his Complaint, Filing No. 1, Plaintiff filed a handwritten summons form which the Court construes as a Motion for Summons, Filing No. 5. However, this matter may not proceed to service of process at this time. Before this matter may proceed, Plaintiff is required to pay an initial partial filing fee of $3.46, as set forth above. Once payment is made, the Court is required to review Plaintiff’s Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court has not yet conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to section 1915(e) to determine whether this matter may proceed to service of process. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summons will be denied without prejudice to reassertion as premature. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, Filing No. 2, is granted. 2. Plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee of $3.46 within 30 days, unless
the Court extends the time in which he has to pay in response to a written motion. 3. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, Plaintiff’s institution must collect the additional monthly payments in the manner set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), quoted above, and forward those payments to the Court. 4. The clerk’s office is directed to send a copy of this order to the appropriate official at Plaintiff’s institution. 5. The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: January 12, 2026: initial partial filing fee payment due. 6. Plaintiff is advised that, following payment of the initial partial filing fee, the next step in Plaintiff's case will be for the Court to conduct an initial review of Plaintiff's claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business. T. Plaintiff's Motion for Summons, Filing No. 5, is denied without prejudice as premature.
Dated this 11th day of December, 2025.
BY THE COURT: Gs F Bp Joseph F. Bataillon Senior United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Juaquez S. Johnson v. United States, Government, Official Capacity; City of Omaha, Government, Official Capacity; Nebraska Public Defender, Government, Official Capacity; and Jami Jacobs, Public Defender, Official Capacity, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juaquez-s-johnson-v-united-states-government-official-capacity-city-of-ned-2025.