Hugueley v. Haslam et al
ORDER Assessing Filing Fee ($350) for Stephen Lynn Hugueley per granting of 2 IFP. As set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, the Court finds that the complaint must be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdictio n to consider it. Additionally, even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 1/18/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail & Warden of RMSI by regular mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
STEPHEN LYNN HUGUELEY,
BILL HASLAM et al.,
Plaintiff Stephen Lynn Hugueley is a state prisoner presently incarcerated on death row at
the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, Tennessee. Before the court is
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). In addition, Plaintiff has filed
a complaint for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983 which is before the court for an
initial review pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)
and 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is also before
Application to Proceed as a Pauper
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a prisoner
bringing a civil action may be permitted to file suit without prepaying the filing fee of $350
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Because Plaintiff properly submitted an in forma pauperis
affidavit, and because it appears from his submissions that he lacks sufficient financial resources
from which to pay the full filing fee in advance, the application (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED.
However, under § 1915(b), Plaintiff nonetheless remains responsible for paying the full
filing fee. See Bruce v. Samuels, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 627, 632, n.3 (2016) (assuming
“without deciding that a mandamus petition qualifies as a ‘civil action’ or ‘appeal’ for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)”); Gross v. Experian, No. 10-cv-150-GFVT, 2015 WL 1038835, at *3-*4
(E.D. Ky. Mar. 10, 2015) (noting that mandamus actions are civil proceedings to which the
PLRA filing fee requirements apply). The obligation to pay the fee accrues at the time the case
is filed, but the PLRA provides prisoner-petitioners the opportunity to make a “down payment”
of a partial filing fee and to pay the remainder in installments. Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby
ASSESSED the full $350 filing fee, to be paid as follows:
(1) The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust-fund account at the institution where he now
resides is DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk of Court, as an initial payment, “20 percent of the
greater of – (a) the average monthly deposits to the petitioner’s account; or (b) the average
monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing
of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
(2) After the initial filing fee is fully paid, the trust-fund officer must withdraw from
Plaintiff’s account and pay to the Clerk monthly payments equal to 20% of all deposits credited
to Plaintiff’s account during the preceding month, but only when the amount in the account
exceeds $10. Such payments must continue until the entire $350 filing fee is paid in full. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
(3) Each time the trust account officer makes a payment to this court as required by this
order, he must print a copy of the prisoner’s account statement showing all activity in the
account since the last payment made in accordance with this order and submit it to the Clerk
along with the payment. All submissions to the court must clearly identify the petitioner’s name
and the case number as indicated on the first page of this order, and must be mailed to: Clerk,
United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37203.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to the Warden of the
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution to ensure that the custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust
account complies with that portion of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 pertaining to the payment of the filing
fee. If Plaintiff is transferred from his present place of confinement, the custodian of his inmate
trust-fund account MUST ensure that a copy of this order follows Plaintiff to his new place of
confinement for continued compliance with this order.
If Plaintiff is transferred to a different prison or is released, he is ORDERED to notify
the court immediately, in writing, of his change of address.
Dismissal of the Complaint
Having granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court was required to
conduct an initial screening of the complaint and to dismiss it if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, is frivolous or malicious, or seeks relief from defendants who are
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); cf. Brewer v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 84
F. App’x 570, 571-73 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming a district court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) of
a complaint filed by a non-prisoner who was proceeding in forma pauperis).
Having conducted such a review, as set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion,
the Court finds that the complaint must be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to consider it. Additionally, even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction, the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
complaint is DISMISSED.
The same considerations that lead the court to dismiss this case also compel the
conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It is therefore CERTIFIED,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff would not be taken
in good faith, and Plaintiff will not be granted leave by this court to proceed on appeal in forma
Motion to Appoint Counsel
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, and because the
Court dismisses the complaint, Plaintiff’s motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?