Kleinfelt v. Gilbert

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided June 8, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00793·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 8 9 Daniel Alan Kleinfelt, No. CV 20-00793-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Correctional Officer III Gilbert, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Daniel Alan Kleinfelt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 17 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2).1 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to 18 appoint counsel (Doc. 8) and a motion for leave to amend his Complaint (Doc. 11), and 19 filed a First Amended Complaint. The Court will deny the deficient Application to Proceed 20 and will give Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete 21 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions. 22 I. Payment of Filing Fee 23 When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and a 24

25 1 Plaintiff filed a new case, Kleinfelt v. Gilbert, No. 2:20cv00872-PHX-JAT (JFM), 26 a few days after he commenced this case. If Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status in that case and he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case, he will be 27 responsible for paying the filing fee for both this case and the new case. In that event, the Court would be required to collect 20% of Plaintiff’s previous month’s income, for each 28 case, each month. Bruce v. Samuels, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 136 S. Ct. 627, 631 (2016) (“[Section] 1915(b)(2) calls for simultaneous, not sequential recoupment of multiple filing fees.”). 1 $50.00 administrative fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma 2 pauperis, pay the $350.00 filing fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 3 An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of indigence and a 4 certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing 5 of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate must submit statements from each 6 institution where the inmate was confined during the six-month period. Id. To assist 7 prisoners in meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a form application. 8 LRCiv 3.4. 9 If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will assess an 10 initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly deposits or the average 11 monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account, whichever is greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An 12 initial partial filing fee will only be collected when funds exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 13 The balance of the $350.00 filing fee will be collected in monthly payments of 20% of the 14 preceding month’s income credited to an inmate’s account, each time the amount in the 15 account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 16 II. Application Fails to Comply With Statute 17 Plaintiff has used the court-approved form and completed the “Acknowledgement 18 of Collection of Filing Fees from Trust Account” section. However, Plaintiff did not have 19 the “Certificate of Correctional Official as to Status of Applicant’s Trust Account” section 20 completed,2 and Plaintiff did not submit a certified six-month trust account statement. In 21 light of these deficiencies, the Court will deny the Application to Proceed and will give 22 Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the $400.00 filing and administrative fees or file a complete 23 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 24 Although Plaintiff attached a printout of his Arizona Department of Corrections 25 (ADC) Inmate Account Summary statement to his Application to Proceed, the printout is 26 not certified by an authorized officer of the institution and does not show deposits and

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

Kleinfelt v. Gilbert, (D. Ariz. 2020).

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

Related

Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Bruce v. Samuels
577 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 2016)