Hinton v. Conrad et al
ORDER denying 12 Motion to Produce; denying 13 Motion to dismiss filing fee and reimbursement of funds. Signed by Senior Judge Patrick Michael Duffy on 12/10/12. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(bsw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON,
ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR., et al.,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce, (Doc. No. 12), and
Motion to Dismiss Filing Fee and Reimbursement of Funds, (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiff is a state court
inmate currently incarcerated at Lanesboro Correctional Institution in Polkton, North Carolina.
Plaintiff has filed numerous frivolous lawsuits in this Court, and he has, thus, been designated as a
“three-striker” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See (Doc. No. 9 at 1: Order).
First, as for the Motion to Produce, filed on July 21, 2012, Plaintiff seeks an Order from the
Court requiring Defendants to produce numerous documents, including, among other things, court
documents related to state court criminal proceedings brought against Plaintiff. See (Doc. No. 12
at 1). On July 27, 2012, this Court entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s action without prejudice
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See (Doc. No. 9). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce is moot and
will be denied.
Next, in the Motion to Dismiss Filing Fee and Reimbursement of Funds, Plaintiff asks the
Court to “rescind any further collections of funds from his prison account, and to reimburse Plaintiff
with all funds already collected” from Plaintiff’s inmate trust account. (Doc. No. 13 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that he is not required to pay a filing fee because he did not file his lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.). Plaintiff contends, rather, that he “specifically referred to the jurisdiction
being proper under Article III, Section 2 to the Constitution of the United States.” (Id.).
Plaintiff’s contention that he is not required to pay a filing fee is without merit.
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s contention that his action is not filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Section 1983 is the vehicle through which inmates such as Plaintiff may file civil actions.
Furthermore, inmates are obligated to pay the full filing fee for a complaint, and this obligation
arises when an inmate files the lawsuit. Hatchet v. Nettles, 201 F.3d 651, 654 (5th Cir. 2000). The
obligation to pay the filing fee remains even where the district court subsequently dismisses the
inmate’s lawsuit under the “three-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1 See In re Alea, 286
Given that Plaintiff has been a prolific filer of frivolous lawsuits in this Court, Plaintiff
would be wise to heed the observation from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Alea
before he commences to file additional, frivolous lawsuits:
Although the requirement that a prisoner litigant may be liable for the payment of
the full filing fee despite the dismissal of his action may be burdensome, it is not
unfair. A prisoner who has filed prior civil actions should be aware of the
disposition of those actions and the possible application of § 1915(g) to any new
actions he wishes to pursue. By choosing to file a new action, he invokes the
jurisdiction of the federal court and avails himself of the process afforded by that
court. Even if the end result is an order of summary dismissal under § 1915(g),
the action will require a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of the
district court and the court staff. The requirement that the full fees be paid for
these actions-whatever their merit or disposition-will provide a prisoner with the
incentive to consider carefully whether or not to submit a new action to the
district court. Not to require the payment of the full fee would permit a prisoner
subject to the three-strikes rule to continue to file frivolous civil complaints-thus
taking much valuable time away from other non-frivolous litigation-without any
consequence beyond their mere dismissal under § 1915(g). The intent of the
PLRA was to deter such litigation and it would be anomalous for a provision of
that Act to provide a means for the repeated filing of frivolous actions without
financial consequences to the prisoner litigant.
F.3d 378, 382 (6th Cir. 2002); Anderson v. Sundquist, 1 F. Supp. 2d 828, 830 (W.D. Tenn. 1998).
Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the full filing fee, therefore, arose when he filed his lawsuit and the
Court’s subsequent dismissal did not terminate the obligation to pay the fee. See also Williams v.
Roberts, 116 F.3d 1126, 1128 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting that appellate fees are assessed at filing,
regardless of the outcome of the appeal). Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Filing Fee and
Reimbursement of Funds will be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce, (Doc. No. 12), and
Motion to Dismiss Filing Fee and Reimbursement of Funds, (Doc. No. 13), are both DENIED.
December 10, 2012
In re Alea, 286 F.3d at 382 (emphases added).
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?