United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
A. JACKSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT
the Court is Robert L. White's ("Plaintiff')
Motion for Status Hearing to Review of (sic) Funds
Collected, in that the Amount Collected has Exceed (sic) the
Amount Permitted (Doc. 36). For the reasons stated
below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion.
originally filed a complaint against Joe Lamartimiere, Troy
Poret, "Unknown Barr," and "W.
Richardson" ("Defendants") for Eighth
Amendment violations involving Defendants allegedly forcing
Plaintiff to be a "tier-walker" for prisoners at
high risk of suicide, at great personal risk to Plaintiff.
(Doc. 1). Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants refused to
allow him to access certain materials necessary for him to
file an unrelated claim, causing said claim to be dismissed.
filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on March 31, 2011
(Doc. 2), which was granted on April 12, 2011 (Doc. 3). On
January 24, 2012, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation dismissing Plaintiffs claims for failure to
state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (Doc.
20). The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on
February 16, 2016, and dismissed Plaintiffs case that same
day. (Docs. 23 and 24). Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of
the Court's ruling dismissing his case. (Doc. 26). On
March 29, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either submit
the full $455.00 cost of the appellate filing fee, or a
properly completed motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 27). On April 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed
his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
(Doc. 28), which was denied on April 25, 2012. Plaintiff,
nonetheless, continued to attempt to pursue an appeal, and
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 33).
Plaintiff now requests that the Court set a hearing to
discuss his allegations that the Department of Corrections
has removed an impermissible amount of money from his prison
account in violation of his right to due process. (Doc. 34 at
p. 1.). Plaintiff further requests that all records
pertaining to funds being removed from his prison account be
released to him. (Id.). Defendants have not
responded to Plaintiffs motion.
one-page motion is unfocused and vague. Plaintiff contends
that the amount ordered to be collected by the Louisiana
State Penitentiary is in excess of that which is authorized
by applicable law. (Id.). Plaintiff quotes 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1)(3) which provides:
"In no event shall the filing fee collected exceed the
amount of fees permitted by statute for the commencement of a
civil action or an appeal of a civil action or criminal
alleges that the fees taken from his prison account exceed
the statutory mandated amount, although he does not specify
how much has been taken, or how much should have been taken.
(Id.). Plaintiffs sparse motion only contains base
allegations without even a modicum of evidence to support his
Court gleans from Plaintiffs motion that Plaintiff is under
the impression that because he was allowed to proceed in
forma pauperis in the District Court action, that he
could not be assessed any filing fees at all. However,
Plaintiff chose to appeal this matter to the Fifth Circuit,
yet this Court certified in writing that the appeal is not
taken in good faith. (Doc. 29 at p. 1). The Fifth Circuit,
therefore, applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)(3), which
provides that "an appeal may not be taken in forma
pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it
is not taken in good faith." Therefore, as Plaintiff
continued his appeal, despite being unable to do so in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1)(3), Plaintiff is required to pay the filing fee
associated with his appeal.
being no legal basis to support Plaintiffs claims, or any
facts that can coalesce into a cognizable cause of action,
the Court denies Plaintiffs motion.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion
for Status Hearing to Review of (sic) Funds Collected, in
that the Amount Collected has Exceed (sic) the Amount
Permitted (Doc. 36) is DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending ...