Spence v. Cooke

587 N.W.2d 904, 222 Wis. 2d 530, 1998 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1230
CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin
DecidedOctober 21, 1998
Docket98-2598, 98-2791—LV
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 587 N.W.2d 904 (Spence v. Cooke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spence v. Cooke, 587 N.W.2d 904, 222 Wis. 2d 530, 1998 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1230 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

*532 PER CURIAM.

These cases require us to decide whether accounts of inmates denominated "release" or "release save," or which are otherwise available to an inmate only upon his or her release to field supervision, 1 are available for purposes of paying a court of appeals filing fee. We conclude that these accounts are available to satisfy the filing fee.

Prior to September 1,1998, an indigent party who stated a claim upon which relief could be granted could commence or defend an action or proceeding without paying or giving security for the fees or costs of the action or proceeding. See § 814.29(1)(a), (c), Stats.; see also State ex rel. Luedtke v. Bertrand, 220 Wis. 2d 574, 578, 583 N.W.2d 858, 860 (Ct. App. 1998). Also prior to September 1, "release" accounts could not be considered when determining an inmate's indigency. See State ex rel. Richards v. Dane County Circuit Court, 165 Wis. 2d 551, 556, 478 N.W.2d 29, 31 (Ct. App. 1991). And under Wis. Adm. Code § DOC 309.466(2) (Nov. 1997), "[r]elease account funds may not be disbursed for any reason until the inmate is released to field supervision."

*533 On September 1, 1998, the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 1997 Wis. Act 133, took effect. 2 Under the PLRA, which addresses the payment of litigation fees and costs by prisoners, 3 the fees and costs are no longer forgiven for indigent prisoners. 4 Rather, a scheme is created for determining how and from what funds the prisoner will pay the fees and costs, either by payment at the time the action or proceeding is commenced or on an installment basis. We will give a brief, *534 but not all-inclusive, overview of the PLRA's provisions relating to fees and costs.

If a "prisoner" as defined in the PLRA "requests leave to commence or defend an action, special proceeding, writ of error or appeal without being required to prepay the fees or costs or without being required to give security for costs," the prisoner shall submit an affidavit of indigency, a certified copy of the prisoner's trust fund account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the request for a waiver, and an authorization to the agency having custody of the prisoner's prison trust fund account to forward payments from that account to the clerk of courts toward payment of fees due. See § 814.29(lm)(b), (lm)(c)2, Stats. If the court determines that the prisoner has assets in a trust fund account, "whether accessible to the prisoner only upon release or before release," the court shall order that the balance in the account be used to satisfy as much of the filing fee as possible before the prisoner will be allowed to commence or defend an action. See § 814.29(lm)(d). If the account has a zero balance, the filing fee is to be paid in $10 installments as funds become available. See § 814.29(lm)(c).

These matters come before the court because the inmates, Norman O. Brown and Frederick N. Spence, each seek waiver of the $150 filing fee required to commence their actions in this court. Spence appeals from the dismissal of his complaint against various prison system officials. Brown has filed a petition for leave to appeal, see Rule 809.50, Stats., from a circuit court order denying his motion to compel discovery. Each inmate is a "prisoner" within the meaning of *535 § 801.02(7)(a)2, Stats., 5 and each filed a Prisoner's Petition for Waiver of Fees/Affidavit of Indigency and requested fee waivers under § 814.29(lm), Stats.

Each prisoner supplied this court with the required certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement. See § 814.29(lm)(b)2, Stats. 6 Spence's statement indicates that he has a balance of $502.86 in a "release save" account and zero balances for every other type of account such as "regular," "savings," "work release," "miscellaneous" and "release fund." Spence's statement also indicates a balance of $74.15 due on "Federal filing fees." Brown's statement indicates that he has a balance of $407.09 in a "release" account and $5.81 in his "regular" account.

The prisoners' trust account statements raise questions under the PLRA regarding the availability of release-type accounts to pay filing fees in light of the previous prohibition on using these accounts prior to release. Therefore, the court required the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Corrections (DOC), Spence and Brown to file memoranda addressing whether a release-type account is available under the PLRA to pay this court's filing fee. The parties have filed the required memoranda.

The DOC and the DOJ argue that the PLRA grants access to accounts formerly available only upon release to field supervision. Spence and Brown argue that DOC *536 rules prohibit access to release accounts prior to release to field supervision. Brown also argues that he has a vested property interest in having his release account funds preserved for his use upon release.

The accessibility of accounts under the PLRA requires statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law that we review de novo. See State ex rel. Frederick v. McCaughtry, 173 Wis. 2d 222, 225, 496 N.W.2d 177, 179 (Ct. App. 1992). The purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent. See State v. Martin, 162 Wis. 2d 883, 893, 470 N.W.2d 900, 904 (1991). In determining legislative intent, we first examine the statutory language itself. See id. If the statute's meaning is clear and unambiguous on its face, resort to extrinsic aids for the purpose of statutory construction is improper. See id. at 893-94, 470 N.W.2d at 904. A statute is ambiguous when it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more different senses. See id. at 894, 470 N.W.2d at 904.

We begin with our examination of the statute's language. Section 814.29(lm)(d), STATS., provides:

If the court determines that the prisoner who made the affidavit does have assets in a trust fund account, whether accessible to the prisoner only upon release or before release, the court shall order an initial partial filing fee to be paid from that trust fund account before allowing the prisoner to commence or defend an action, special proceeding, writ of error or appeal.

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

Related

Greg Griswold v. Jonathan T. Miles
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2025
State v. Roman T. Wise
2021 WI App 87 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2021)
Angela Lee Linsmeyer v. Jason Scott Linsmeyer
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2020
Edmonson v. Fremgen
590 F. App'x 613 (Seventh Circuit, 2014)
Jason Edmonson v. Diane Fremgen
Seventh Circuit, 2014
State ex rel. Akbar v. Kronzer
2004 WI App 108 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2004)
Turner v. Taylor
2003 WI App 256 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2003)
State Ex Rel. Lindell v. Litscher
2003 WI App 36 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2003)
Champeau v. City of Milwaukee
2002 WI App 79 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2002)
Doty v. Doyle
182 F. Supp. 2d 750 (E.D. Wisconsin, 2002)
State Ex Rel. Saffold v. Schwarz
2001 WI App 56 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2001)
City of Milwaukee v. Glass
2000 WI App 252 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2000)
State Ex Rel. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals
2000 WI 86 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2000)
State Ex Rel. Coleman v. Sullivan
601 N.W.2d 335 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1999)
State Ex Rel. Stinson v. Morgan
593 N.W.2d 924 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1999)
Spence v. McCaughtry
46 F. Supp. 2d 861 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
587 N.W.2d 904, 222 Wis. 2d 530, 1998 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spence-v-cooke-wisctapp-1998.