Baker v. Retelsdorf et al
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's request for a reduction in his filing fee obligation is denied. The clerk of the court is directed to term the motion event associated with Filing Number 44 . Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
REGINALD G. BAKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEIGH ANN RETELSDORF, TOM
RILEY, BRENDA LEUCK, and
RYAN LINDBERG,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4:14CV3103
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s correspondence dated January 8,
2016. (Filing No. 44.) Plaintiff asks the court for a 10 percent reduction of his filing
fee obligation.
The method for collecting the filing fee from a prisoner is specifically provided
for in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Section 1915(b) is written in mandatory terms (“shall”),
leaving no discretion to the district court to waive an in forma pauperis prisoner’s
filing fee. The statute provides that an indigent inmate who files a lawsuit in federal
court must pay the $350.00 filing fee, first by making an initial partial payment and
then by sending the remainder of the fee to the court in installments. Specifically,
after payment of the initial partial filing fee, “the prisoner shall be required to make
monthly payments of 20 percent of the proceeding month’s income credited to the
prisoner’s account.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s
request for the court to reduce the amount of his filing fee obligation will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s request for a reduction in his
filing fee obligation is denied. The clerk of the court is directed to term the motion
event associated with Filing Number 44.
DATED this 15th day of January, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2
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?