Adames v. Bikowski et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 4/19/2019 DENYING 62 Plaintiff's Motion to Use Release Account Funds to Pay Balance of Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Jose A Adames at Waupun Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JOSE A. ADAMES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-1010-JPS

ROBERT J. BIKOWSKI, JONATHAN S.
PAWLYK, BRAD D. BADE, CAPTAIN
NATHAN E. HAYNES, JODI L. TRITT,
and GWENDOLYN A. VICK,

ORDER

Defendants.
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution,
filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his civil rights
were violated. See (Docket #1, #20, #24). He paid an initial partial filing fee
(“IPFF”) of $8.07 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1). See (Docket #7). On
March 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court order the
balance of the filing fee in this case be paid from his prison release account.
(Docket #62). The Court must deny the motion.
The Court may not order the requested disbursement from Plaintiff’s
prison release account to pay for the filing fee in this matter. The most the
Court can do is direct that the IPFF be paid from his release account. See
Doty v. Doyle, 182 F. Supp. 2d 750, 751 (E.D. Wis. 2002) (noting that “the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act [(“PLRA”)]. . .authorize[s] the courts
to order that. . .a prisoner’s release account be made available [to pay an
IPFF]”). The Court lacks the authority—statutory or otherwise—to allow a
prisoner to tap into his release account to pay current (or future) litigation
costs. Cf. Wilson v. Anderson, No. 14-CV-0798, 2014 WL 3671878, at *3 (E.D.

Wis. July 23, 2014) (declining to order that a prisoner’s full filing fee be paid
from his release account, “[g]iven the [DOC’s] rationale for segregating
funds into a release account” and the absence of any statutory authority
compelling the court to do so).
Denying prisoners the use of their release accounts to fund litigation
costs is also prudent given that those accounts are “restricted account[s]
maintained by the [DOC] to be used upon the prisoner’s release from
custody.” Id. Permitting a prisoner to invade that account for litigation costs
could be a detriment to the prisoner’s likelihood of success postincarceration, see Wis. Adm. Code. § DOC 309.466 (stating that
disbursements from a prisoner's release account are authorized “for
purposes that will aid the inmate's reintegration into the community”),
especially if the prisoner is overly litigious. As the Seventh Circuit has
instructed, “like any other civil litigant, [a prisoner] must decide which of
his legal actions is important enough to fund,” Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d
1107, 1111 (7th Cir. 2003); thus, if a prisoner concludes that “the limitations
on his funds prevent him from prosecuting [a] case with the full vigor he
wishes to prosecute it, he is free to choose to dismiss it voluntarily and bring
it at a later date.” Williams v. Berge, No. 02-CV-10, 2002 WL 32350026, at *8
(W.D. Wis. Apr. 30, 2002). He is not free, however, to tap into his release
account to cover those legal costs. As a consequence, the Court is obliged to
deny Plaintiff’s request to pay the remaining balance of his filing fee from
his release account.

Page 2 of 3

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to use his release account to
pay the remaining balance of the filing fee in this matter (Docket #62) be
and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 19th day of April, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3