Quintanilla et al v. Mansfield Correctional Institution et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Motion to suspend court fines and costs until plaintiffs' release from incarceration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 7/23/2014. (agm1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Allen Quintanilla, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.

:
:
:

Mansfield Correctional
Institution, et al.
Defendants.

Case No. 2:13-cv-121

:

JUDGE PETER C. ECONOMUS
Magistrate Judge Kemp

:

ORDER
Plaintiffs Allen Quintanilla and Wayne Castle, Jr. have
filed a joint Motion to Suspend Court Fines and Costs until
release from incarceration (Doc. 13).

Mr. Quintanilla and Mr.

Castle, both state prisoners, filed this civil action alleging
that prison officials failed to take any actions in response to
their complaints that other inmates had threatened their lives
and their families.

The case was dismissed on April 8, 2013.

When they initiated this action, Mr. Quintanilla and Mr.
Castle filed motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, both
of which were granted (Docs. 2 & 5).

In accordance with 28

U.S.C. §1915(b)(1), which governs proceedings in forma pauperis
in prisoner-initiated cases, the Court assessed Plaintiffs the
full amount of the Court’s $350 civil filing fee, but, according
to the formula set forth in §1915(b), ordered an initial partial
payment and monthly installment payments until the fee is fully
paid.

Plaintiffs have asked that the monthly payments be

suspended until they are released from custody.
By law, the only time a prisoner proceeding in forma
pauperis is relieved from making payments is when the amount in
the prisoner’s account is under $10.00 for the month.
§1915(b)(2).

28 U.S.C.

There is nothing in the relevant statute which

suggests “that a prisoner may deviate from the payment schedule
provided, or that a court may ... defer a prisoner’s payment
until he is released from custody.”

See 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(2);

Ippolito v. Buss, 293 F. Supp.2d 881, 883 (N.D. Ind. 2003).
Indeed, at least one court has held that “deferring the required
payments would destroy the purpose of the statute,” which is to
prevent the filing of frivolous lawsuits, because “the
potentially constraining force of immediate liability would be
lost.”

Id.

Moreover, “ensuring payment of the full amount of

filing fees is much easier while a prisoner is in custody and has
a prisoner’s trust account, it is not so simple once a prisoner
has been released.”

Id.

Simply put, there is no legal basis for granting Plaintiffs’
request, and the Court would violate the law, as enacted by
Congress, were it to do so.

For that reason, Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Suspend Court Fines and Costs (Doc. 13) is denied.
Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is
filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for
reconsideration by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A),
Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 14-01,
pt. IV(C)(3)(a). The motion must specifically designate the
order or part in question and the basis for any objection.
Responses to objections are due fourteen days after objections
are filed and replies by the objecting party are due seven days
thereafter. The District Judge, upon consideration of the
motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
This order is in full force and effect even if a motion for
reconsideration has been filed unless it is stayed by either the
Magistrate Judge or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.4.
/s/Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge