Ramirez v. United States of America

Filing 67

ORDER denying 66 Request for Reconsideration filed by Daniel Pena Ramirez (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on May 13, 2013. (clg) CC: Ramirez. (kt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
DANIEL PENA RAMIREZ,

Case No. 11-CV-2931 (PJS/AJB)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Daniel Ramirez’s motion for reconsideration
of the Court’s order granting him leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but requiring him to
pay the appellate filing fee in installments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The motion is
denied.
Ramirez seeks to be excused from paying any (or at least most) of the fee, contending
that assessment of the full fee constitutes an excessive fine and violates his rights to due process,
equal protection, and access to the courts. These arguments are meritless. See Murray v. Dosal,
150 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (rejecting access-to-courts, equal-protection, and dueprocess challenges to § 1915(b)); cf. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.,
492 U.S. 257, 259-60 (1989) (Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines clause does not preclude
civil-jury award of punitive damages because such awards are not “punishment”).
Ramirez also appears to ask, in the alternative, that his initial partial filing fee of $32.51
be waived. Ramirez does not contend that he lacks the funds to pay the initial fee, however.
Instead, Ramirez contends that he uses his money for additional food and hygiene costs. But
“‘[i]f a prisoner determines that his funds are better spent on other items rather than filing a civil

rights suit, he has demonstrated an implied evaluation of that suit that the courts should be
entitled to honor.’” Murray, 150 F.3d at 818 (quoting Roller v. Gunn, 107 F.3d 227, 233 (4th
Cir. 1997) (quotations omitted)). Ramirez’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 66] is DENIED.

Dated: May 13, 2013

s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge

-2-