Chatmon v. West et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Plaintiff Carlton Chatmon's motion for waiver of fees [Record No. 16 ] is DENIED. To the extent Chatmon requests pauper status, the motion [Record No. 16] is DENIED, as moot. 2. The plaintiff's motion for p roduction of documents [Record No. 17 ] is DENIED, as premature. 3. Chatmon's motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint [Record No. 18 ] is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 8/9/16.(SYD)cc: mailed to pro se filer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
(at London)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CARLTON B. CHATMON,
Plaintiff,
V.
P.A. WEST, et al.,
Defendants.
****

****

Civil Action No. 6: 16-85-DCR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

****

****

This matter is pending for consideration of three motions filed by the plaintiff.
[Record Nos. 16; 17; 18] Plaintiff Chatmon is an inmate confined at the United States
Penitentiary – McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky. On May 17, 2016, he filed a pro se
Complaint, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the
doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). [Record Nos. 1; 1-1] On July 20, 2016, the Court granted Chatmon’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, assessing an initial partial filing fee of $10.88 and subsequent
monthly payments in the amount of 20% of the plaintiff’s income for the preceding month,
provided the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. [Record No. 15, p. 2]
Chatmon has now filed a motion for waiver of fees, asserting that he should not be
“required to prepay fees.” [Record No. 16, p. 1] As grounds for the motion, he indicates that
he only receives sufficient money to purchase hygiene products, stamps, and over-thecounter medications while incarcerated. [Id., p. 2] He further claims that he does not have
an institutional job. [Id.] To the extent the present motion is a duplicative motion for pauper
-1 

status, it will be denied, as moot. To the extent the plaintiff is instead contending that he
should not have to pay any filing fees due to his indigence, he is incorrect. Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a), a court may authorize the prosecution of a civil or criminal suit without
prepayment of fees by a person who submits appropriate documentation showing his
inability to pay.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

However, that authorization is limited by

subsection (b), which states that an inmate bringing a civil action “shall be required to pay
the full amount of a filing fee” regardless of his pauper status. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
Under that subsection, the court assesses an initial partial filing fee of 20% of the inmate’s
average monthly deposits or average monthly account balance. Id. After the initial partial
filing fee is collected, the court assesses monthly payments of 20% of the inmate’s income
for the preceding month, provided the account balance exceeds $10.00.

28 U.S.C. §

1915(b)(2).
Thus, contrary to Chatmon’s assertion, “all prisoners are required to pay an initial
partial filing fee” if funds exist. Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281, 1284 (6th Cir. 1997).
They are also required to make subsequent partial payments subject to the terms outlined
above. Id. This Court already determined that funds exist for the initial partial filing fee of
$10.88. [Record No. 15, p. 2] For the following months, Chatmon will only be required to
make payments if sufficient funds exist in his account. Consequently, the plaintiff’s motion
to waive payment of any filing fees will be denied.
Chatmon has also filed a motion requesting production of documents under Rule 34
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Record No. 17] Additionally, that motion seems to
include interrogatories for the defendants. [Id.] However, that motion is premature because
-2 

the Court must first screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
If, after screening, the Court determines that an Answer is warranted, the defendants will be
directed to respond to the Complaint. Discovery would take place after the defendants’
responsed, if appropriate.

However, motions seeking discovery are not necessary or

appropriate at this stage of the proceeding.
Finally, Chatmon has filed a motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint, which
includes allegations that the defendants are retaliating against him for filing the present
action. [Record No. 18] However, a plaintiff seeking to amend the Complaint must attach a
copy of the proposed Amended Complaint. See Kuyat v. BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc., 747
F.3d 435, 444 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Shillman v. United States, 221 F.3d 1336 (table), 2000
WL 923761, at *6 (6th Cir. 2000)). Such a failure constitutes grounds for denying the
motion to amend. See, e.g., Clark v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 5:14-cv-2712, 2015
WL 4067316, *5 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 2, 2015); Betts v. Tolkkiennen, No. 2:13-cv-153, 2013 WL
6858466, *5 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 30, 2013); Smith v. Lappin, No. 08-CV-218-ART, 2009 WL
3161490, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 29, 2009).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff Carlton Chatmon’s motion for waiver of fees [Record No. 16] is

DENIED. To the extent Chatmon requests pauper status, the motion [Record No. 16] is
DENIED, as moot.
2.

The plaintiff’s motion for production of documents [Record No. 17] is

DENIED, as premature.

-3 

3.

Chatmon’s motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint [Record No. 18] is

DENIED, without prejudice.
This 9th day of August, 2016.

-4