Shannon v. Franks
This text of Shannon v. Franks (Shannon v. Franks) 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
JUSTIN SHANNON,
Plaintiff, 4:25CV3060
vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SCOTT FRANKS, Director, Individual and Official capacity; TAGGARD BOYD, Ward of RTC Prison, Individual and Official capacity; JAMES FRANZEN, Administrator, Individual and Official capacity; RICHARD BLUE, Unit Manager, Individual and Official capacity; JAMES OURADA, Doctor Psychiatrist, Individual and Official capacity; GRANT JENSEN, Mental Health Unit Manager, Individual and Official capacity; KERRIE PAULSON, Mental Health Case Worker, Individual and Official capacity; and BRIAN SHERWOOD, Unit Manager with Mental Health, Individual and Official capacity;
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). Filing No. 6. Upon consideration, Plaintiff is permitted to 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 (“PLRA”) “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). Here, Plaintiff has already paid the Court’s $350.00 filing fee. In accordance with the Court’s March 17, 2025, Memorandum and Order, Filing No. 5, Plaintiff filed the present IFP Motion on April 7, 2025, Filing No. 6. In accordance with the PLRA, Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP in the present case, and he has satisfied his obligation to pay the full amount of the Court’s $350.00 filing fee. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, Filing No. 6, is granted. 2. Plaintiff has paid the full amount of the Court’s $350.00 filing fee and no further filing fee payments are due. 3. Plaintiff is advised that 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.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2025.
BY THE y
M. Hx enior 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
Shannon v. Franks, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shannon-v-franks-ned-2025.