United States of America v. Griffin
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/1/2012. (ma,)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY GRIFFIN,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 12 C 533
(04 CR 531)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
After this Court had ruled on February 28 on the issue of a
certificate of appealability in connection with the current
notice of appeal filed by Randy Griffin (“Griffin”), it was
informed that Griffin had also filed a motion for leave to
proceed with that appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
This Court
then obtained from the Clerk’s Office copies of Griffin’s motion
and its attached printout that reflected transactions in his
trust fund account at Lewisburg USP (where he is in custody) for
the period of 3 months and 7 days from October 18, 2011 through
January 25, 2012.
That printout enabled this Court to make the
calculation called for by 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1)(“Section
1915(b)(1)”)--a calculation that showed the average monthly
deposits to Griffin’s account for that period came to $154.80.
That calculation calls into play two considerations that
appear to look in opposite directions.
First, because Seventh
Circuit precedent requires a litigant seeking in forma pauperis
status to establish not only his or her inability to pay but also
the assertion of a nonfrivolous claim, this Court’s alreadystated denial of a certificate of appealability would call for
the rejection of Griffin’s IFP request.
But at the same time a
literal reading of Section 1915(b)(1) would appear to trigger
Griffin’s obligation to pay the entire $455 in appellate filing
fees (although on an installment basis) by reason of the mere
filing of an appeal, in which event the initial payment toward
the filing fees would have to be $30.96 (20% of $154.80), after
which the remaining provisions of the statute would be applicable
to require the payment of future installments.
This Court’s law clerk’s research looking for an insight
into the resolution of that dilemma has revealed no Seventh
Circuit precedent addressing the subject.
About the closest
approach by our Court of Appeals appears to be the
nonprecedential decision in Dallas v. Gamble, No. 00-1580, 2
F.App’x 563, 2001 WL 238071 (7th Cir. Mar. 6), which points
toward the outcome referred to at the end of the preceding
paragraph. But because the factual scenario in Dallas is
significantly different from the situation here, this Court will
simply deny Griffin’s IFP motion without attaching a financial
obligation to pay the appellate filing fees, leaving it to the
Court of Appeals to decide differently if it rules otherwise on
2
that score.
________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:
March 1, 2012
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?