Pruitt v. Belisle et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting in part and denied in part plaintiff's 11 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief. Plaintiff's request to waive filing fee is denied. Plaintiff's request to "drop the case" is granted. The 6 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is vacated. The action is dismissed without prejudice. By Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (BG) Distributed on 11/19/2013 (jt).

N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
Michael Donnell Pruitt,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Paul Belisle, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Case No. 1:13-cv-112

The plaintiff, Michael Dowell Pruitt (“Pruitt”), is an inmate at the North Dakota State
Penitentiary (“NDSP”). He initiated the above-entitled action in September 2013 with the
submission of an application to proceed in forma pauperis along with a complaint alleging that he
had been denied access to legal, educational, and religious materials while being held in
administrative segregation.
The court granted Pruitt’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Docket No. 6. In
so doing it advised Pruitt: (1) he was still obligated to obligated to make monthly payments in the
amount as determined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) until his filing fee is paid in full; and (2) the full
fee would be collected even if the court dismisses the case because it is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. Id.
Based upon its subsequent review of Pruitt’s complaint as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
the court issued an order permitting Pruitt to proceed with his claim regarding the free exercise of
his religion (read: Satanism) but dismissed his claims regarding access to legal and education
materials and for money damages. See Docket No. 9. It further directed the Clerk’s office to
1

effectuate service of the summons and complaint on the defendants in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4.

The record reflects that the Clerk’s office sent a request for waiver of service to the

defendants on October 30, 2013.
On November 6, 2013, Pruit filed the what the court construes a motion for reconsideration
of its order granting his application to proceed in forma pauperis to the extent that it required him
to pay the filing fee in installments. Therein he states:
To Who it May Concern:
I would like to appeal the court order to pay a statutory filing fee. I am
indigent and have been since I’ve been incarcerated.
Please do not process anything. If so I would like to drop the case all together. Case
No. 1:13-cv-112. Michael Donnell Pruitt vs. Paul Belisle, et. al.,
Thanks for time concerning these matters.
(Docket No. 11).
The Prison Litigation Act (“PLRA”) requires prisoners bringing a civil action to pay the full
amount of their filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). For prisoners who cannot pay the entire
filing fee up front, the PLRA requires that they pay the filing fee in installments. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(2). The import of this is that the court cannot simply waive Pruitt’s filing fee.
Pruitt has advised that he does not wants to proceed with this action should he be required
to pay the filing fee. Thus, it would appear that the PLRA has had its intended effect, albeit later
than one would expect. See e.g. Leonard v. Lacy, 88 F.3d 181, 185 (2d Cir.1996) (“[T]here is
abundant legislative history to indicate that Congress was endeavoring to reduce frivolous prisoner
litigation by making all prisoners seeking to bring lawsuits or appeals feel the deterrent effect
created by liability for filing fees.”); Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 331 (3d Cir. 2001)
(“Congress enacted the PLRA in order to limit the filing of frivolous and vexatious prisoner
lawsuits.”); Jackson v. Stinnett, 102 F.3d 132, 136-37 (5th Cir.1996) (“The fee provisions of the

2

PLRA were designed to deter frivolous prisoner litigation in the courts by making all prisoners
seeking to bring lawsuits or appeals feel the deterrent effect created by liability for filing fees.”
(internal quotations omitted); Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281, 1286 (6th Cir. 1997) (“The
legislation was aimed at the skyrocketing numbers of claims filed by prisoners-many of which are
meritless-and the corresponding burden those filings have placed on the federal courts. Thus,
Congress sought to put in place economic incentives that would prompt prisoners to ‘stop and think’
before filing a complaint.”).
Given the present posture of this case, the court is reluctantly inclined in this particular
instance to allow Pruitt to withdraw this action without any financial penalty. First, when granting
Pruitt’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court did not collect an initial filing fee. Thus,
no money has been collected from Pruitt that would have to be returned. Second, defendants have
yet to execute and return the waiver of service sent to them by the Clerk’s office. Thus, they have
yet to be formally served and arguably have yet to expend any appreciable resources with respect
to this matter.
Pruitt’s motion (Docket No. 11) is DENIED insofar as it requests the court to waive the
filing fee in its entirely. However, Pruitt’s request to “drop the case” is GRANTED. The above
entitled action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court VACATES its order granting
Pruitt’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and with it the requirement that the Pruitt pay the
filing fee in installments from his inmate spending account.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2013.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3