Robert Lawrence Morgan v. David Haro, Co Iii, Michael Unit Unidentified Stewart, Co Iii, Michael Unit Unidentified Baker, Sergeant, Michael Unit

Fifth Circuit

Robert Lawrence Morgan v. David Haro, Co Iii, Michael Unit Unidentified Stewart, Co Iii, Michael Unit Unidentified Baker, Sergeant, Michael Unit

112 F.3d 788, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 9315, 1997 WL 211799

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1997

Docket97-40105

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 112 F.3d 788 (Robert Lawrence Morgan v. David Haro, Co Iii, Michael Unit Unidentified Stewart, Co Iii, Michael Unit Unidentified Baker, Sergeant, Michael Unit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Lawrence Morgan v. David Haro, Co Iii, Michael Unit Unidentified Stewart, Co Iii, Michael Unit Unidentified Baker, Sergeant, Michael Unit, 112 F.3d 788, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 9315, 1997 WL 211799 (5th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The magistrate judge declined to rule on a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal filed by Texas prisoner Robert Lawrence Morgan, #452774. In accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA):

(1) If a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court shall assess and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of—

(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account; or

(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal.

(2) 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.

*789 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). A prisoner who seeks to proceed IFP on appeal must obtain leave to so proceed despite proceeding IFP in the district court. Jackson v. Stinnett, 102 F.3d 132, 136 (5th Cir.1996).

We hold that the financial screening and assessment procedures of the PLRA regarding appellate filing fees are to be conducted by the district courts. When a district court grants a prisoner leave to proceed IFP on appeal, the district court must assess the initial partial filing fee and order payment of the remainder of the filing fee as directed by the PLRA. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district court so that the district court may rule on the IFP motion and, if granted, order the payment of the appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b). After this determination is made, the district court shall return the case to this court for further proceedings.

REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

The magistrate judge declined to rule on a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal filed by Texas prisoner Robert Lawrence Morgan, #452774. In accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA):

(1) If a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court shall assess and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of—

(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account; or

(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal.

(2) 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.

*789 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). A prisoner who seeks to proceed IFP on appeal must obtain leave to so proceed despite proceeding IFP in the district court. Jackson v. Stinnett, 102 F.3d 132, 136 (5th Cir.1996).

We hold that the financial screening and assessment procedures of the PLRA regarding appellate filing fees are to be conducted by the district courts. When a district court grants a prisoner leave to proceed IFP on appeal, the district court must assess the initial partial filing fee and order payment of the remainder of the filing fee as directed by the PLRA. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district court so that the district court may rule on the IFP motion and, if granted, order the payment of the appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b). After this determination is made, the district court shall return the case to this court for further proceedings.

REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 F.3d 788, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 9315, 1997 WL 211799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-lawrence-morgan-v-david-haro-co-iii-michael-unit-unidentified-ca5-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack