MARTIN v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia
DecidedOctober 14, 2021
Docket5:21-cv-00229
StatusUnknown

This text of MARTIN v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (MARTIN v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MARTIN v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, (M.D. Ga. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

DAVID MARTIN, : : Plaintiff, : VS. : NO. 5:21-CV-00229-MTT-CHW : INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, : et al., : : Defendant. : ________________________________ :

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff David Martin, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at the Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia, has filed documents that have been construed as a complaint and amended complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF Nos. 1, 5). Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED, but Plaintiff will be required to recast his claims on the Court’s standard form if he wishes to proceed with this action. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee or security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). As it appears Plaintiff is unable to pay the cost of commencing this action, his application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is hereby GRANTED. However, even if a prisoner is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, he must nevertheless pay the full amount of the $350.00 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). If the prisoner has sufficient assets, he must pay the filing fee in a lump sum. If sufficient assets

are not in the account, the court must assess an initial partial filing fee based on the assets available. Despite this requirement, a prisoner may not be prohibited from bringing a civil action because he has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). In the event the prisoner has no assets, payment of the partial filing fee prior to filing will be waived.

Plaintiff’s submissions indicate that he is unable to pay the initial partial filing fee. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that his complaint be filed and that he be allowed to proceed without paying an initial partial filing fee. I. Directions to Plaintiff’s Custodian Hereafter, Plaintiff will be required to make monthly payments of 20% of the

deposits made to his prisoner account during the preceding month toward the full filing fee. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the Baldwin State Prison. It is ORDERED that the warden of the institution wherein Plaintiff is incarcerated, or the sheriff of any county wherein he is held in custody, and any successor custodians, shall each month cause to be remitted to the Clerk of this Court twenty percent (20%) of

the preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s account at said institution until the $350.00 filing fee has been paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). In accordance with provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Plaintiff’s custodian is hereby authorized to forward payments from the prisoner’s account to the Clerk of Court each month until the filing fee is paid in full, provided the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. It is ORDERED that collection of monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund account shall continue until the entire $350.00 has been collected, notwithstanding the dismissal of

Plaintiff’s lawsuit or the granting of judgment against him prior to the collection of the full filing fee. II. Plaintiff’s Obligations Upon Release An individual’s release from prison does not excuse his prior noncompliance with the provisions of the PLRA. Thus, in the event Plaintiff is hereafter released from the

custody of the State of Georgia or any county thereof, he shall remain obligated to pay those installments justified by the income to his prisoner trust account while he was still incarcerated. The Court hereby authorizes collection from Plaintiff of any balance due on these payments by any means permitted by law in the event Plaintiff is released from custody and fails to remit such payments. Plaintiff’s Complaint may be dismissed if he is

able to make payments but fails to do so or if he otherwise fails to comply with the provisions of the PLRA. ORDER TO RECAST According to Plaintiff, this action “raise[s] three (3) claims of federal rights that’s being violated” by Defendants. Recast Compl. 2, ECF No. 5. First, Plaintiff alleges that

the IRS violated his federally-protected rights by failing to release stimulus checks to him and other prisoners. Id. at 3. Second, Plaintiff appears to contend that the Georgia Department of Corrections wrongfully profited from prisoner labor because it “was not required to pay fines in order to allow prisoners to work for free while . . . benefit[t]ing off the free labor.” Id. at 4. Third, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Easley violated his federally protected rights by denying Plaintiff’s special religious request and requiring Plaintiff to cut his hair. Id. at 5.

A plaintiff may set forth only related claims in a single lawsuit. A plaintiff may not join unrelated claims and various defendants in his complaint unless the claims arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 (emphasis added). “[A] claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence if there

is a logical relationship between the claims.” Construction Aggregates, Ltd. v. Forest Commodities Corp., 147 F.3d 1334, 1337 n.6 (11th Cir. 1998). In this case, it is unclear from Plaintiff’s submissions how each of the three sets of claims he has asserted are logically related to one another. Plaintiff is accordingly ORDERED to entirely recast his Complaint to include all

amendments and additional facts he wishes to make a part of his pleading. The recast complaint must contain a caption that clearly identifies, by name, each individual that Plaintiff has a claim against and wishes to include as a defendant in the present lawsuit. Plaintiff is to name only the individuals associated with the claim or related claims that he is pursuing in this action. Plaintiff must then list each defendant again in the body of his

complaint and tell the Court exactly how that individual violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff should state his claims as simply as possible and need not attempt to include legal citations or legal terminology. If, in his recast complaint, Plaintiff fails to link a named defendant to a claim, the claim will be dismissed. Likewise, if Plaintiff makes no allegations in the body of his recast complaint against a named defendant, that defendant will be dismissed. Plaintiff is cautioned that the opportunity to recast is not an invitation for him to

include every imaginable claim that he may have against any state official. Plaintiff will not be permitted join claims against multiple defendants in one action unless Plaintiff can establish a logical relationship between the claims, as required by Rule 20. The recast complaint will supersede (take the place of) the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint in this case (ECF Nos. 1, 5). The Court will not look back

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

Related

Construction Aggregates, Ltd. v. Forest Commodities Corp.
147 F.3d 1334 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MARTIN v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-internal-revenue-service-gamd-2021.