Cody v. McDonald et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting in forma pauperis status on appeal. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy on 3/30/2016. (CG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM CODY,

4:14-CV-04155-RAL
Plaintiff,
ORDER FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STATUS ON APPEAL

vs.
ASHLEY MCDONALD, INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TIM
MEIROSE, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; DARIN YOUNG,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
HEATHER BOWERS, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JESSICA
STEVENS, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; KAYLA TINKER,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
DR. MARY CARPENTER, MD,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
LINDA MILLER-HUNOFF, INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; STEVE
BAKER, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; AND JENNIFER WAGNER,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
Defendants.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a limited remand in order
that this court may determine appellant’s in forma pauperis status and assess
and collect the appellate filing fees.
Determining In Forma Pauperis Status
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) provides:

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the
district-court action, or who was determined to be financially
unable to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case, may
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization,
unless:
(A)

the district court--before or after the notice of appeal is filed-certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds
that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the certification
or finding; or

(B)

a statute provides otherwise.

Because plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status and no
certification that the appeal would not be taken in good faith has been issued,
plaintiff may appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization.
Assessing Appellate Filing and Docketing Fees
It satisfactorily appears from the prison records that plaintiff has a large
negative balance in his prison trust account. Accordingly, the court finds that
plaintiff is not required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. ' 1915,
to make an initial partial filing fee.
Collecting Appellate Filing and Docketing Fees
Plaintiff is responsible for payment of the entire $505 appellate docketing
and filing fee.
When an inmate seeks pauper status, the only issue is whether the
inmate pays the entire fee at the initiation of the proceeding or over
a period of time under an installment plan. Thus, prisoners who
appeal judgments in civil cases must sooner or later pay the
appellate filing fees in full.
Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d at 483. Therefore, the institution having
custody of the plaintiff is hereby directed that whenever the amount in
2

plaintiff's trust account exceeds $10.00, monthly payments that equal 20% of
the funds credited the preceding month to the plaintiff's trust account shall be
forwarded to the U.S. District Court Clerk's Office pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '
1915(b)(2), until the filing fee is paid in full.
ORDER
Upon the record it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status on appeal.

2.

That the institution having custody of the plaintiff is hereby
directed that whenever the amount in plaintiff’s trust account
exceeds $10.00, monthly payments that equal 20% of the funds
credited the preceding month to the plaintiff's trust account shall
be forwarded to the U.S. District Court Clerk's Office pursuant to
28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b)(2), until the $505 filing fee is paid in full.

DATED this 30th day of March, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

VERONICA L. DUFFY
United States Magistrate Judge

3