Stubbs v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections et al

Filing 9

ORDER - The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide plaintiff with a copy of receipts of payments received by the Court. The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the institutional cashier. Plaintiffs motion 8 is otherwise DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 07/02/2018. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JASON L. STUBBS,
Plaintiff,
vs

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION &
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-813

Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.
ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Warren Correctional Institution, has filed
a motion regarding filing fee deductions taken from his prisoner account. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff
claims that $36.30 was improperly deducted from his account. Plaintiff does not seek any
specific relief by way of his motion, other than seeking an explanation of the withdrawal of his
funds.
Plaintiff has filed and been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in two cases in
this Court. 1 With respect to filing fees, this Court’s authority is constrained by the PLRA, which
modified the statute governing federal in forma pauperis civil complaints brought by prisoners
“in hopes of deterring prisoners (whom Congress determined to be a particularly litigious group)
from filing frivolous lawsuits and potentially wasting the courts’ very limited resources” by
making those unable to pay the full filing fee upfront ultimately “bear the cost of the full
amount” of that fee by way of monthly installment payments from their prison accounts. See
Ippolito v. Buss, 293 F. Supp.2d 881, 882–83 & nn.2–3 (N.D. Ind. 2003) (and authorities cited

1

In addition to this case, plaintiff was also granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in Case No. 1:17-cv-721.
Plaintiff has filed an identical motion regarding fee deductions in that case.

therein); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). 2 Under the
PLRA, the moment a prisoner files his complaint with the Court, he becomes “responsible for
the filing fee” and “waive[s] any objection to the withdrawal of funds from his trust fund account
to pay court fees and costs.” Patterson v. Mackie, No. 13-15149, 2014 WL 1478437, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. Apr. 15, 2014); see also McGore, 114 F.3d at 605 (“by filing the complaint . . ., the
prisoner waives any objection to the fee assessment by the district court” and “to the withdrawal
of funds from the trust account by prison officials to pay the prisoner’s court fees and costs”).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) provides in pertinent part:
After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall be required to make
monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the
prisoner’s account. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward
payments from the prisoner’s account to the clerk of the court each time the amount
in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.
The PLRA contains no language suggesting that the courts have authority or any discretion to
allow prisoners to depart or deviate from the payment schedule explicitly set out in that statutory
provision. Cf. Ippolito, 293 F. Supp.2d at 883 (“there is nothing [in § 1915(b)(2)] suggesting
that the court may depart from the explicit language of the statute [or] that a prisoner may
deviate from the payment schedule”).
As noted in the January 26, 2018 Order granting petitioner in forma pauperis status in
this case (Doc. 4), after paying an initial partial filing fee, plaintiff “is further required to make
monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his prison account
until he pays the full amount of the filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). To date, plaintiff has
made four payments applied toward the filing fee in Case No. 1:17-cv-721 totaling $82.54,
2
It is noted that McGore has been overruled in part on other grounds by the Supreme Court in Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007), and the Sixth Circuit in LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944 (6th Cir. 2013). The citations to
McGore that are contained in this Order are proper because they do not pertain to the issues addressed in either
Jones or LaFountain.

2

including the most recent payment of $36.30 received by the Court on May 10, 2018. The
records of the Court do not indicate any payments applied toward the filing fee in Case No. 1:17cv-813.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide plaintiff with a copy of receipts of
payments received by the Court. The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to send a copy of
this Order to the institutional cashier.
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 8) is otherwise DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

3