Thompson v. Thompson et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Motion Under House Joint Resolution Act 192 (1933). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDDIE LEE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 05-CV-73451-DT
HONORABLE AVERN COHN

v.
JUDITH S. THOMPSON and
EVELYN BRADFORD,
Defendants.
__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION
UNDER HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION ACT 192 (1933) (Doc. 15).
I.
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which has long since
closed. Before the Court is plaintiff Eddie Lee Thompson’s pro se “Motion Pursuant to
House Joint Resolution Act 192 June 5, 1933" regarding the Court’s 2005 summary
dismissal of his complaint.1 For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
II.
In 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint and was granted leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court dismissed the
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. As stated in the order of dismissal, some of plaintiff’s claims
concerned the validity of his continued confinement and were not properly raised in a
1

Plaintiff filed the identical motion in another closed civil rights case, 05-60232, which
was before a different judge in this district.

civil rights action, see Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and other
claims concerned allegations of medical malpractice and negligence which did not rise
to the level of a constitutional violation, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
III.
In his motion, plaintiff demands a refund of the fees he has paid for this action
and cites House Joint Resolution 192 (1933). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), a prisoner who qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil rights action is
still liable for the civil action filing fee and must pay the fee through partial payments as
outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The PLRA does not allow any exemptions to the
requirement that an indigent prisoner pay the filing fee over time. See White v.
Paskiewicz, 89 F. App’x 582, 584 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing In re Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1133-34 (6th Cir. 1997); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601,
605 (6th Cir. 1997)). The payment schedule is established by federal statute. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Plaintiff presents no valid legal authority which gives the Court
discretion to refund or stop his required payments. His citation to House Joint
Resolution 192 (1933) is not relevant. House Joint Resolution 192 (1933), codified at
31 U.S.C. § 5118, provided for the suspension of the gold standard, see Holyoke Water
Co. v. American Writing Paper Co., 300 U.S. 324, 339 n.1 (1937) (setting forth the joint
resolution), an action by Congress having no conceivable bearing on Plaintiff’s criminal
proceedings, medical care, or payment of fees for this case.

2

IV.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
The Court also concludes that an appeal from this order would be frivolous and
cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States,
369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).
SO ORDERED.

s/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 18, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Eddie Thompson
241541, Newberry Correctional Facility, 3001 Newberry Avenue, Newberry, MI 49868
and the attorneys of record on this date, May 18, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary
mail.

s/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

3