Norwood, Charles v. Tobiasz et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying plaintiff Charles Norwood's 88 motion to modify payment of his filing fees. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 11/8/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHARLES LAMONT NORWOOD,
aka MS. CHELSY,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

11-cv-507-bbc

DR. TOBIASZ, DR. GARBELMAN,
DR. CALLISTER, MR. POLLARD,
JAMES MUENCHOW, CYNTHIA THORPE,
MICHAEL MEISNER, DON STRAHOTA,
WELCOME ROSE, MELISSA ROBERTS
and SCHWOCHERT,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Charles Lamont Norwood has filed a motion to modify the collection of his
filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Plaintiff requests that the institution where he is
in custody stop taking 100% of his deposits from his inmate account to pay for the filing fees
owed in five of his federal cases and instead collect only 20% of his deposits and pay off one
case at a time. (It appears from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections website that
plaintiff is now being held at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility.) Plaintiff filed a
similar motion to modify payment of his filing fees in case 09-cv-738-bbc, which I denied
on September 3, 2010.
In 2016, the Supreme Court rejected the very argument presented by plaintiff and
confirmed that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) requires “simultaneous, not sequential, recoupment
of multiple filing fees.” Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 631 (2016). In other words, the

1

statute requires the institution to take 20% of plaintiff’s income for each case for which he
still owes filing fees. Id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Charles Norwood’s motion to modify payment of his
filing fees, dkt. #88, is DENIED.
Entered this 8th day of November, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2