Lee v. United States of America et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) DENYING pla's 11 MOTION for Order to cease deducting funds from his inmate trust acct; (2) clerk shall send a copy of the docket sheet to pla. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 11/28/11.(KJR)cc: COR, pla w/docket sheet (US Mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
)
REGINALD LEE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
) Civil Action No. 5:11-CV-249-JMH
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
**
**
**
**
**
Plaintiff Reginald Lee, confined in the Federal Medical Center
located in Lexington, Kentucky, (“FMC-Lexington”), has filed a
motion, [R. 11], seeking an Order directing FMC-Lexington officials
to
cease
deducting
funds
from
his
inmate
trust
account
and
remitting them to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the September
22, 2011, “Payment Order,” [R. 8].
For the reasons set forth
below, Lee’s motion will be denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2011, Lee filed a pro se Complaint asserting
claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§
1346(b), 2671-2680.
[R. 2].
On September 9, 2011, Lee filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
[R. 7].
On September 22, 2011, the Court entered a “Payment Order”
granting Lee in forma pauperis status, assessing the $350.00 filing
fee, assessing an initial partial filing fee (“IPFF”) of $30.89,
and ordering Lee’s custodian to remit future partial payments under
specific conditions set forth in the Payment Order.
[R. 8].
On
September 29, 2011, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and
Order, and Judgment, dismissing Lee’s FTCA claim for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Lee
has
now
filed
a
motion:
(1)
[R. 9 & 10].
objecting
to
the
past
deduction of funds from his inmate trust account at FMC-Lexington,
including the assessed $30.89 IPFF, and (2) requesting an Order
preventing “Mr. Day” at FMC-Lexington from deducting any further
sums from his inmate account and remitting them to the Court
pursuant to the Payment Order.
See Motion, [R. 11].
Lee alleges that on September 27, 2011, the day he received a
copy of the Payment Order:
Plaintiff sent the court a letter stating that he did not
want to continue with the law suit and that he was not
willing to pay the initial partial filing fee of $30.89
because he could not afford to pay the total $350.00 to
the court. (See Attached)
On September 29, 2011 the court sent the Plaintiff a
judgment [sic] Order stating that this matter would be
stricken from the Court’s active docket.
[Id., p. 1].
Lee contends that because he can not afford to have partial
payments
deducted
from
his
inmate
account,
and
because
this
proceeding has been stricken from the active docket, he should be
relieved of any further financial obligation to pay the assessed
$350.00 filing fee.
He seeks an Order directing FMC-Lexington
officials to cease deducting funds from his inmate account.
II.
DISCUSSION
Lee’s motion will be denied.
First, the Court has no record
of having received, at any time, a letter from Lee in which he
objected to the Payment Order.
The first notice the Court has
received from Lee concerning the filing fee is his current motion,
filed on November 18, 2011, [R. 11].
The Clerk of the Court will
be instructed to send Lee a copy of the docket sheet, current
through the entry of this Order.
Second, even if the Court had received such a letter, it would
not constitute grounds for relieving Lee of his obligation to pay
the $350.00 filing fee assessed in the Payment Order.
By passage
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Congress required inmates to pay the
$350.00 filing fee in civil cases regardless of whether they are
successful or unsuccessful at any given stage in civil rights
cases.
Section 1915(b)(2) merely permits prisoners to pay the
remainder of filing fees in installments via periodic remittances
from their inmate trust accounts when they meet certain financial
conditions, as opposed to paying the fee in full at the beginning
of the case as most plaintiffs are required to do.
The filing fee
assessment in prisoner cases is mandatory, not optional.
Section 1915(b) does not relieve a prisoner from paying the
$350.00 filing fee if the district court sua sponte dismisses his
Complaint at the initial screening stage, as was done in Lee’s
case.
If the prisoner has no funds in his inmate account, the jail
or prison transmits no monies to the district court, but federal
courts process the Complaint regardless of whether an inmate pays
the filing fee in full, pays it in installments, or has no
available funds in his inmate account from which installment
payments can be made.
Likewise, the fact that this proceeding has been dismissed and
stricken from the active docket does not entitle Lee to a refund of
any fees collected so far from his inmate account.
A motion
seeking the return of a filing fee will be denied absent either a
fundamental defect in the proceeding or a complete miscarriage of
justice inconsistent with the basic demands of fair procedure.
Duncan-El v. United States, 168 F.3d 489, 1998 WL 791749, *2 (6th
Cir. November 6, 1998) (Table); Bowden v. Latrelle, No. 07-938,
2008 WL 243954, at *1 (W.D. Mich. January 28, 2008).
Here,
the
Court
thoroughly
analyzed
Lee’s
Complaint,
determined that he could not prevail under the FTCA, and dismissed
the Complaint with prejudice.
Thus, because Lee received due
process as to his claims, no fundamental defect or miscarriage of
justice occurred in this proceeding.
Lee is neither relieved of
paying further partial filing fees nor is he entitled to a refund
of partial filing fees already deducted from his account.
His
motion seeking the termination of the fee obligation will be
denied.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Reginald Lee’s motion requesting an Order directing FMC-
Lexington officials to cease deducting funds from his inmate trust
account, [R. 11], is DENIED; and
(2)
The Clerk of the Court shall send Lee a copy of the
docket sheet of this proceeding, current through the entry of this
Order.
This the 28th day of November, 2011.
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?