Rashaw-Bey v. United States of America et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 6 is denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiff's requests for reimbursement and relief from the fee obligations in this matter are denied. Plaintiff's request for copies of releva nt payment records is granted. The clerk of the court is directed to transmit to him a copy of records maintained in Case Nos. 08-3287, 09-3075, 09-3081, 09-3083 and 09-3235. Signed by District Judge Sam A. Crow on 2/24/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Geoffrey L. Rashaw-Bey by regular mail.) (Attachments: #(1) Docket Sheet and Electronic Payment Records) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

GEOFFREY L. RASHAW-BEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 09-3235-SAC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion
captioned as “Return Service” (Doc. 6).
Background
Plaintiff commenced this civil action on October 29, 2009. By
an order entered on November 12, 2009 (Doc. 4), the court granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the matter. The
order advised plaintiff that collection of the $350.00 filing fee
would commence upon his satisfaction of earlier fee obligations
assessed in Case Nos. 08-3287 and 09-3075.
Plaintiff did not file an appeal.
Discussion
In the present motion, plaintiff seeks (1) reimbursement for a
$40.00 payment taken from his institutional account on February 1,
2011, and account records; (2) court records proving that he agreed
to

pay

filing

fees;

and

(3)

a

copy

of

all

payments

showing

transaction numbers.
The court will address these points in sequence. First, it

appears the $40.00 payment from plaintiff’s institutional account in
February 2011 was credited toward the filing fee in Case No. 093075-JAR, Rashaw-Bey v. Carrizalles, et al.1 A review of the docket
sheet in that matter shows plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis in that matter. There is no apparent basis for the
reimbursement sought by plaintiff; rather, it appears the payment
was applied toward a fee obligation in a civil action initiated by
the plaintiff.
Next, plaintiff appears to assert that he never agreed to pay
filing fees in the cases he has filed. The filing fee, however, is
statutory, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914, and plaintiff is obligated to pay
the fee in an action he files even though he has been allowed to
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), a prisoner proceeding in forma
pauperis is required to submit an initial partial filing fee
calculated upon the prisoner’s financial records for the six-month
period preceding the filing. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

Thereafter,

the agency having custody of the prisoner must submit installment
payments calculated upon the inmate’s monthly income. § 1915(b)(2).
See

also

Purkey

v.

Green,

28

Fed.

Appx.

736,

746

(10th

Cir.

2001)(“Section 1915(b) does not waive the filing fee, ... nor does
it condition payment of the filing fee on success on the merits...
Notwithstanding

the

district

court’s

dismissal

of

plaintiff’s

action, [a prisoner] is still required to pay the full filing fee to

1

A copy of the docket sheet in that action is attached.
2

the district court.”)
Plaintiff was advised of his obligation to pay the full filing
fee. The court’s order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis
explained the manner of calculating installment fee payments and
stated: “Plaintiff is directed to cooperate fully with his custodian
in authorizing disbursements to satisfy the filing fee, including
but not limited to providing any written authorization required by
the custodian or any future custodian to disburse funds from his
account.” (Doc. 4, n.1.) Thus, plaintiff’s complaint and motion to
proceed in forma pauperis create an obligation to pay the filing
fee, and he is not entitled to relief from that obligation.
Finally,

plaintiff

requests

copies

of

the

financial

transactions and records that reflect his payments to the court.
The court’s records reflect that plaintiff has filed seven
actions during his incarceration in this district. Two of those
actions, namely, Case No. 09-3001-RDR, Rashaw-Bey v. Federal Bureau
of Prisons, et al., and Case No. 09-3043, Rashaw-Bey v. Nalley, et
al., are habeas corpus actions not subject to the PLRA. See United
States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737 (10th Cir. 1997)(PLRA does not
encompass habeas corpus actions or related appeals).
The remaining five cases are civil actions covered by the PLRA,
and the court will direct the clerk of the court to transmit to the
plaintiff copies of financial payment records maintained by the

3

clerk concerning these actions.2
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff’s motion (Doc.
6) is denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiff’s requests for
reimbursement and relief from the fee obligations in this matter are
denied. Plaintiff’s request for copies of relevant payment records
is granted, and the clerk of the court is directed to transmit to
him a copy of records maintained in Case Nos. 08-3287, 09-3075, 093081, 09-3083, and 09-3235.
Copies of this order shall be transmitted to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 24th day of February, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

2

The court notes that it enters similar orders on this date
in Case Nos. 09-3081 and 09-3235. While electronic copies of
the financial records will be entered in each case, only one
set of paper copies need be transmitted to the plaintiff in
satisfaction of these orders.
4