Tran et al v. Timberlake et al
Order on ifp request: Petitioners to submit Trust Fund Account Statement. Trust Fund Account Statement due by 9/11/2009. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/20/09. (vob),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------H U N G NAM TRAN and ERIC L. FANKHAUSER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated , ORDER Plaintiffs, 0 9 - cv -5 0 7 - b b c v. KA R EN TIMBERLAKE, Secretary of the W iscon sin Department of Health Services, S T EV E WATTERS, Director at Sandridge Secure Treatment Facility and BYRON BARTOW, Director at Wisconsin R esource Center, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------This is a joint action brought by plaintiffs Hung Nam Tran and Eric Fankhauser, patients at the Sandridge Secure Treatment Center, alleging violations of their constitutional r i g h ts . Both plaintiffs have submitted petitions and affidavits to proceed without
prep aym ent of fees and costs. This court uses one method for determining the indigent status of all institutionalized persons, even those like plaintiffs who are not subject to the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform
Act. See Longbehn v. United States, 169 F.3d 1082 (7th Cir. 1999). From a six-month resident account statement covering the full six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint, the court calculates two amounts, 20% of the plaintiffs' average m o n th ly income and 20% of the plaintiffs' average monthly balance. Whichever amount is greater is the amount the plaintiffs will have to prepay toward the $350 filing fee. The in form a pauperis statute does not permit a court to relieve a plaintiff of his or her entire obligation to pay filing fees. It merely allows the court to grant qualifying individuals leave to proceed without prepaying some or all of the filing fee. Plaintiffs' initial partial payments cannot be calculated at this time because the resident account statements submitted with the complaint do not cover the full six-month perio d immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Plaintiffs submitted their
co m p lain t on August 7, 2009. Their resident account statements should cover the period b egin n in g approximately February 7, 2009 and ending approximately August 7, 2009. In stead , both plaintiffs' statements cover approximately a two-month period beginning June 2 , 2009 and ending August 11, 2009. Both statements show that on June 2, 2009, sums of m oney were transferred into plaintiffs' accounts from the Wisconsin Resource Center. W h en an individual resides at one or more institutions during the six-month period im m ed iately preceding the filing of his lawsuit, he is required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) to obtain a resident account statement "from the appropriate official of each institution at
w h ich [he] is or was confined" during the relevant period. Therefore, if the plaintiffs want to continue with this lawsuit, they will each have to write to the Wisconsin Resource Center an d any other institution in which they may have been confined between February 7, 2009 and their transfers to Sandridge Secure Treatment Center, to request a certified copy of the resident account statement for the appropriate period.
ORDER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs Hung Nam Tran and Eric Fankhauser may have until S ep tem b er 11, 2009, in which to submit resident account statements for the period beginn ing February 7, 2009 and ending August, 7, 2009. If, by September 11, 2009, either plaintiff fails to respond to this order, that plaintiff will be considered to have withdrawn fro m the lawsuit voluntarily and will be dismissed from the case without being charged any po rtion of the $350 filing fee. E n tered this 20 t h day of August, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict 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?