Phillips, Jackie v. Wall, Edward et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying plaintiff's 24 motion to waive initial partial filing fee and screening of the complaint. Initial partial filing fee due 5/20/2016. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 4/27/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JACKIE L. PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

16-cv-176-jdp

EDWARD WALL, et al.,
Defendants.

On April 8, 2016, this court entered an order directing plaintiff Jackie L. Phillips, a
patient confined at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center pursuant to Chapter 980 of the
Wisconsin Statutes, to submit an initial partial payment of the filing fee in the amount of
$13.59 by April 29, 2016. Dkt. 23. Now plaintiff has filed a letter asking the court to waive
the initial partial payment and forgo screening his complaint. Dkt. 24.
In his motion, plaintiff says that the April 8 order entered by the magistrate judge
incorrectly states that he is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Plaintiff
asserts that he should not have to pay any filing fee for bringing this civil action, initial
partial or otherwise, because he is not a prisoner or subject to the PLRA. Plaintiff is correct in
that he is not subject to the PLRA. But the magistrate judge correctly assessed plaintiff an
initial partial filing fee in this case. This court uses one method for determining the indigent
status of all institutionalized persons, even those like plaintiff who are not subject to the
PLRA.
Regardless of whether a litigant is a prisoner, he may be required to pay an initial
partial payment if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Longbehn v. United States,
169 F.3d 1082, 1083 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Partial-payment requirements remain appropriate

even when the PLRA does not apply.”). This court has adopted the PLRA’s method for
determining indigency in cases involving institutionalized persons partly because the method
is fair, easy to apply, and results in institutionalized persons having to relinquish only a
fraction of their average monthly deposits to the court. The Seventh Circuit has found this
approach to be sound. Id.
The resident account statement that plaintiff submitted shows regular deposits to his
account averaging $67.95 a month. Because plaintiff has received regular deposits to his
account, I will deny his motion to waive the initial partial filing fee. But I will give plaintiff
additional time—until May 20, 2016—to pay the initial partial payment.
Turning to plaintiff’s request to waive the screening of his complaint, plaintiff should
be aware that the standard for screening complaints by prisoners or by plaintiffs proceeding
in forma pauperis is effectively the same: I must determine whether the complaint is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or asks for money
damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. As the Seventh Circuit has held, “district courts have the power to
screen complaints filed by all litigants, prisoners and non-prisoners alike, regardless of fee
status.” Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)).
Accordingly, once the court receives plaintiff’s initial partial payment, I will screen his
complaint even though he is not a prisoner.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Jackie Phillips’s motion to waive the initial partial filing fee and screening
of the complaint, Dkt. 24, is DENIED.

2

2. Plaintiff must prepay $13.59 of the $350 filing fee by May 20, 2016. If plaintiff
fails to make the required payment by May 20, 2016, or show cause for his failure
to do so, then I will conclude that he has withdrawn this action voluntarily. In
that event, the clerk of court is directed to close this case without prejudice to
plaintiff filing it again at a later date.
Entered April 27, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3