Coutts v. Kearney County, Nebraska et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's motion (Filing No. 10 ) is denied. 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
JAMES A. COUTTS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
V.
)
)
KEARNEY COUNTY, NEBRASKA, )
SHERIFF SCOTT WHITE, DEPUTY )
SHANE MONTHEY, DEPUTY
)
COREY ZIOLA, and DEPUTY
)
JUSTIN GLANZER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

8:16CV121

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff, who is an inmate at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, was previously
given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 7.) The court’s IFP order
advised Plaintiff that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that prisoner plaintiffs
pay the full amount of the court’s $350.00 filing fee by making monthly payments to
the court, even if the prisoner is proceeding IFP. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The order
informed Plaintiff that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff must pay an initial
partial filing fee in the amount of 20 percent of the greater of Plaintiff’s average
monthly account balance or average monthly deposits for the six months preceding
the filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff was further advised that in addition to the initial
partial filing fee, Plaintiff must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the
preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court modify its
IFP order to reflect that Plaintiff should only be required to pay 20 percent of the
preceding month’s earned income, not money credited to Plaintiff’s account as a gift.
(Filing No. 10.)

Plaintiff’s contention that gifts from his family should be excluded as income
for purposes of calculating his payments under the Act is without merit. Income
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act includes “all deposits to the prisoner’s inmate
account, whether the deposit be earned income, a gift, or otherwise.” Cosby v.
Meadors, 351 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2003). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion will be
denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Filing No. 10) is denied.
DATED this 27th day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2