Matthew Sikora, Jr. v. Frank X. Hopkins

Eighth Circuit

Matthew Sikora, Jr. v. Frank X. Hopkins

108 F.3d 978, 1997 WL 142223

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1997

Docket96-2602

StatusPublished

This text of 108 F.3d 978 (Matthew Sikora, Jr. v. Frank X. Hopkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthew Sikora, Jr. v. Frank X. Hopkins, 108 F.3d 978, 1997 WL 142223 (8th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Sikora, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 1 order applying the fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We construe Sikora’s appeal from a non-final order as a petition for writ of mandamus.

Because Sikora was not granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) until May 13, 1996 — following the April 26, 1996 enactment of the PLRA — we find no error in the district court’s application of the PLRA’s fee provisions to Sikora, even though he submitted his complaint and IFP motion prior to the PLRA’s effective date. Cf. Thurman v. Gramley, 97 F.3d 185, 188-89 (7th Cir.1996) (appeal lodged prior to enactment of PLRA, but ineffective because appellant lacked IFP status, is not filed until IFP motion is decided).

Accordingly, Sikora’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. We appreciate counsel’s willingness to accept appointment in this matter and thank him for the services he has rendered.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sustaining the memorandum and order of the Honorable David L. Piester, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.

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

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Sikora, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 1 order applying the fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We construe Sikora’s appeal from a non-final order as a petition for writ of mandamus.

Because Sikora was not granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) until May 13, 1996 — following the April 26, 1996 enactment of the PLRA — we find no error in the district court’s application of the PLRA’s fee provisions to Sikora, even though he submitted his complaint and IFP motion prior to the PLRA’s effective date. Cf. Thurman v. Gramley, 97 F.3d 185, 188-89 (7th Cir.1996) (appeal lodged prior to enactment of PLRA, but ineffective because appellant lacked IFP status, is not filed until IFP motion is decided).

Accordingly, Sikora’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. We appreciate counsel’s willingness to accept appointment in this matter and thank him for the services he has rendered.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sustaining the memorandum and order of the Honorable David L. Piester, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 F.3d 978, 1997 WL 142223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-sikora-jr-v-frank-x-hopkins-ca8-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack