Dale et al v. Kaemingk et al
Filed in error: ORDER denying motion to rescind or clarify order (Doc. 97 in 04-4153). Signed by US Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy on 1/9/2018. (CG) Modified on 1/9/2018 (SLW).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
JAMES I. DALE,
VARIOUS STATE OFFICIALS,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RESCIND OR CLARIFY ORDER
DOCKET NO. 97 IN CIV. 04-4153
Previously, James I. Dale, plaintiff in each of the above-referenced case
numbers, filed civil lawsuits in this court while a prisoner in South Dakota
state penitentiaries. Subsequent to those filings, he was released from the
custody of South Dakota. He is now an inmate in a Minnesota state prison.
When Mr. Dale was incarcerated in South Dakota, this court had in
place orders in each of the above cases directed to Mr. Dale’s custodians
directing the payment of Mr. Dale’s filing fees. When Mr. Dale was transferred
to the custody of the state of Minnesota, this court issued an omnibus order to
Mr. Dale’s new custodians directing that they deduct 20 percent of the monthly
balance of Mr. Dale’s prison account whenever his account balance exceeded
$10. See Docket No. 89 in Civ. 04-4153. This order was in conformity with 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Mr. Dale now seeks an order from this court rescinding that omnibus
fee-collection order, or in the alternative, order the Minnesota custodians to
calculate their withdrawal of fees from his account differently. See Docket
No. 97. Mr. Dale has a prison job in his Minnesota facility and earns $9.71 per
hour. See Docket No. 98-1. In a compensation statement Mr. Dale submitted
to the court, Mr. Dale earned $631.15 from his job between December 3 and
16, 2017. Id. The Minnesota custodians then, pursuant to this court’s
omnibus order, deducted 20 percent of $631.15 (which equals $126.23) from
his prison account to apply to his outstanding filing fees in his federal cases in
the District of South Dakota. Id. This is in accord with this court’s order and
with § 1915(b)(2). See Docket No. 89; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
However, the Minnesota authorities are also deducting money from
Mr. Dale’s account for costs of confinement, restitution, child support, and
other matters. See Docket No. 98 in Civ. 04-4153. The Minnesota authorities
deduct the 20 percent for federal filing fees first, and then deduct the other
expenses afterward. Id. Mr. Dale wants this court to order the Minnesota
authorities to deduct the miscellaneous expenses first, and then take 20
percent out of the reduced figure. Id. In this way, Mr. Dale anticipates he will
get to keep more of his wages from his prison job and save up money for his
anticipated release from prison. See Docket Nos. 97 & 98.
So long as the Minnesota custodians comply with this court’s order, this
court has nothing to say about how they conduct other administrative matters
such as the order in which deductions from Mr. Dale’s paycheck are made.
The Minnesota custodians are in compliance with this court’s order and with
the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Mr. Dale’s motion to rescind this court’s prior order
[Docket No. 97] is DENIED. Likewise, Mr. Dale’s alternative motion for an
order to require his Minnesota custodians to reorder the manner in which they
calculate deductions from Mr. Dale’s prison account is also DENIED.
DATED this 9th day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
VERONICA L. DUFFY
United States Magistrate Judge
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?