Smith v. Huibregtse

151 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6657, 2001 WL 521763
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DecidedMarch 9, 2001
Docket00-C-01117
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 151 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (Smith v. Huibregtse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Huibregtse, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6657, 2001 WL 521763 (E.D. Wis. 2001).

Opinion

ORDER

GORENCE, United States Magistrate Judge.

The plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his civil rights. The plaintiff requested leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform *1041 Act (PLRA), prisoners are required to pay the statutory filing fee of $150.00 for their actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

Under the PLRA, which amended the in forma pauperis statute, the court must assess an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the average monthly deposits to the plaintiffs prison account or the average monthly balance in the plaintiffs prison account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint, whichever is greater. In no event will a prisoner 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). -

The certified copy of the plaintiffs prison trust account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the fifing of his complaint showed that the average monthly deposit to his account was $51.52 and the average monthly balance was -$4.93. Because the plaintiffs average monthly deposit was greater than his average monthly balance, the plaintiff was assessed an initial partial fifing fee of $10.30. On August 17, 2000, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the sum of $10.30 within 21 days as an initial partial fifing fee pursuant to the PLRA.

Subsequently, in response to an August 29, 2000, letter from the plaintiff, the court afforded the plaintiff additional time to September 29, 2000, to pay the initial fifing fee. Thereafter, the plaintiff responded to the court, stating that he cannot pay the $10.30 initial fifing fee because he does not have money in his'account. He also attached another petition and affidavit for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a six-month certified statement. See Plaintiffs Letter dated September 7, 2000. The statement shows that the plaintiff has regular bimonthly deposits of $22.40 to his prison account but that amounts are consistently withheld from those deposits. These amounts include payments for restitution, victim witness surcharge and medical co-pay loans.

By order of November 14, 2000, the court outlined the procedural background of this case and asked the plaintiff to inform the court on how he elects to proceed in this action. By letter of November 30, 2000, the plaintiff advised the court that he had no money in his release account to pay the initial fifing fee.

As an initial matter, the court notes that Wisconsin prisoners have primarily two types of accounts: a “general account” and a “release account.” The general account, also called a “trust account,” receives a prisoner’s pay and other income. Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.02(8). Prisoners can withdraw funds from this account while they are in state custody. Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.49(2). The release account, by contrast, cannot be accessed by a prisoner until he is released. 1 Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.466(2).

As the court noted earlier, a prisoner will 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): However, in Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 435 (7th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1054, 118 S.Ct. 707, 139 L.Ed.2d 649 (1998), and overruled on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir.2000) and Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir .2000), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that § 1915(b)(4) only comes into play when a *1042 prisoner has both no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee. Id. (emphasis added). Prisoners with periodic income have “means” even when they lack “assets.” Id. The plaintiffs trust account statement indicates that he regularly receives prison wages. Therefore, this court cannot allow the plaintiff to proceed without prepayment of the initial filing fee under § 1915(b)(4).

Having determined that the plaintiff must pay, the court must next decide how to ensure that the fee is collected. The question of how a prisoner’s filing fee is to be collected is determined entirely by the PLRA and is outside the prison’s control once the prisoner files a complaint or notice of appeal. Newlin, 123 F.3d at 436. As shown in the plaintiffs trust account statement, the Wisconsin prison currently withhold amounts due for legal loans, restitution and victim witness surcharges before they apply money towards a prisoner’s federal filing fee. See Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1076 (E.D.Wis.1999); Williams v. Litscher, 115 F.Supp.2d 989, 991-92 (W.D.Wis.2000). As a result, federal filing fees go unpaid because prison officials have given other types of prisoner debt higher priority.

The prisoner’s trust account is the account routinely used to pay the filing fees under the PLRA. Prison officials could be directed by the court to collect federal filing fees by accessing the funds in the prisoner’s release account since nothing in the language, structure or purpose of the PLRA suggests that release accounts were meant to be excluded from the PLRA’s filing fee provisions. See Spence v. McCaughtry, 46 F.Supp.2d 861, 863 (E.D.Wis.1999).

The plaintiffs states that he has no money in his release account. Regardless, given the purpose of the release account to provide funds to the prisoner upon his or her release from incarceration, the court does not deem it prudent to routinely focus on the release account as the initial source of funds to satisfy the filing fee payment requirements of the PLRA. Accordingly, an evaluation of the prison’s current system for the disbursement of funds from a prisoner’s trust account in the context of the PLRA is warranted.

The PLRA, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), provides in relevant part:

(1)....

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6657, 2001 WL 521763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-huibregtse-wied-2001.