Moon v. Walton

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN ENTIRETY 14 Report and Recommendations. Case dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 4/9/2013. (kar)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARNELL WESLEY MOON,
Petitioner,
v.
J. S. WALTON,
Defendant.

No. 13-cv-00068-DRH-PMF
ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 14),
issued on March 21, 2013, by United States Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier
recommending dismissal of petitioner’s Section 2241 petition for a writ of habeas
corpus (Doc. 1). Petitioner is held at United States Penitentiary in Marion (“USP
Marion”). He objects to the R&R, claiming he has no control over the funds in his
account and is not able to direct the financial office staff at USP Marion to release
his funds and remit his filing fee. Petitioner claims that this Court should take
reasonable steps to determine that the prisoner has complied with the court’s
order by authorizing payment to officials before dismissing his petition.
Petitioner further argues that the Seventh Circuit has failed to address the
type of inquiry that must be made before dismissing a petition for non-payment of
the filing fee. He instructs this Court instead to look to the Fifth Circuit for its
interpretation of such an inquiry, in Hatchet v. Nettles, 201 F.3d 651 (5th Cir.
2000). Even if this Court were to look to our sister circuit for instruction, the
Page 1 of 3

instant case is distinguishable from the Hatchet case. Here, unlike in Hatchet,
the Court determined in petitioner’s earlier case, that based on the average
monthly balance in his trust fund account for the previous six months, he could
afford to pay the $5.00 filing fee (Doc.11), Moon v. Roal, 12-982-DRH (S.D. Ill.
Dec. 11, 2012). This Court further directed that any future civil action petitioner
filed in this Court would not be considered until full payment of the filing fee in
Moon v. Roal was paid. Moreover, petitioner claimed in his IFP motion that he
could not afford to pay the fee because he had no available funds in his trust
account. In his objection to the R&R however, he now claims that he has no
control over the funds despite his instruction to officials at USP Marion to release
the $5.00 fee.
Petitioner also objects to the R&R by claiming the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”) does not apply to habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C § 2241 and
therefore he should be allowed to proceed IFP. Petitioner cites Walker v. O’Brien,
216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000) for this holding. While this is true, this Court and
sister federal trial courts have recognized that it is appropriate to employ the
mechanism set out in § 1915(a)(2) and (b) in cases involving § 2241 petitions due
to its ease and consistency with the purpose of § 1915, which is to allow indigent
prisoners access to courts by enabling them to pay their filing fees in small
installments. See e.g. Longbehn v. Reno, 27 F. Supp. 2d 1162, 1164-66 (W.D.
Wis. 1998).

Using this mechanism, the Court previously determined that

Page 2 of 3

petitioner was able to pay the $5.00 filing fee. See Moon v. Roal, 12-982-DRH
(S.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2012).
Petitioner has failed to pay his outstanding filing fee on his earlier petition,
Moon v. Roal, despite this Court’s order to do so. Petitioner has also failed to pay
his filing fee in this case, which was due on March 7, 2013 after denial of his
motion for leave to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 9).

Accordingly, the Court

ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 14) in its entirety and dismisses petitioner’s claims
without prejudice for non-payment of outstanding filing fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 9th day of April, 2013.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.04.09
16:22:02 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court.

Page 3 of 3