Hausken v. Lewis et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 10 MOTION to Terminate legal financial obligations filed by Phillip Burton Hausken. Show Cause Response due by 11/2/2015, signed by Judge J Richard Creatura. (MET) cc: plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

PHILLIP BURTON HAUSKEN,

11

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

13

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05346-RBL

D LEWIS et al,.

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20

The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States
Magistrate Judge, J. Richard Creatura. The Court’s authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4.
On June 14, 2013, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because
this action was duplicative of another case where plaintiff was pursuing injunctive relief on the same
issue. Dkt. 7; see Hausken v. Lewis, 12-5882BHS/JRC. The case was closed on June 17, 2013. See

21
generally Dkt. 8. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to modify, terminate, or reduce legal

22
financial obligations. Dkt. 10.

23
24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

The handwriting in plaintiff’s motion is very hard to read but the Court understands plaintiff

1

2 has stated:
I should only be charged for one case 05882 Daniel Lewis instead of 3-5346-05514
both with D Lewis[.] I should only be [charged] for one case 05344 05514 both with
[Daniel] Lewis as correspondents for both cases he state [word is unclear] 350.00 … I
have no money and no job…I can’t pay the debt ... If you can be charged for the
cases when you did not deny [in forma pauperis] status, The state can deny back
cases where you did not [unclear] [in forma pauperis status] and charged your
[unclear] from to give … 4 5 or 6 strikes instead of 3, the states should have a
[unclear] they have charge[d] you. If you didn’t have [in forma pauperis status] you
could not be charged.

3
4
5
6
7

Id. at 1-2.

8

While plaintiff’s motion is unclear, it seems to indicate that plaintiff seeks an order waiving

9
10

the collection of the filing fee in this action. However, no filing fee was collected because plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied. See Dkt. 7. If plaintiff claims the filing fee has

11
been collected in this case, he should clearly explain when the filing fee was collected and how much

12
was collected.

13
If plaintiff is seeking a waiver of the collection of the filing fee in another case in which

14
plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status, the Court notes that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not

15
provide any authority or mechanism for the Court to waive the payment of a plaintiff’s filing fee
16
or to return the filing fee after dismissal of an action. In amending 28 U.S.C. § 1915 with the
17
enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321
18
(Apr. 26, 1996) (PLRA), Congress intended to provide financial disincentives for prisoners filing
19
lawsuits in forma pauperis. See Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir.1997) (“Congress
20
enacted PLRA with the principal purpose of deterring frivolous prisoner litigation by instituting
21
economic costs for prisoners wishing to file civil claims. See, e.g., H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104–
22
378, at 166–67 (1995); 141 Cong. Rec. S14626 (daily ed.) (Sept. 29, 1995) (statement of Sen.
23
Dole)).
24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2

1

“Filing fees are part of the costs of litigation.” Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 775 (7th

2 Cir.1998). Prisoner cases are no exception. The PLRA has no provision for return of fees
3 partially paid or for cancellation of the remaining fee. See Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260, 261–
4 62 (2d Cir.2001) (inmates who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis were not entitled to
5 refund of appellate fees or to cancellation of indebtedness for unpaid appellate fees after they
6 withdrew their appeals). In fact, “[a] congressional objective in enacting the PLRA was to
7 ‘mak[e] all prisoners seeking to bring lawsuits or appeals feel the deterrent effect created by
8 liability for filing fees.’” Id. at 261.
9

Accordingly, the Court directs plaintiff to explain what action he wishes the Court to

10 take. Plaintiff must respond to this order by November 2, 2015. Plaintiff’s response should be
11 legibly written or typed. If plaintiff’s response does not clearly state what action he wishes the
12 Court to take, or if plaintiff fails to respond to this order, the Court will deny the motion.
13

Dated this 2nd day of October, 2015.

A

14
15

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3