United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Stephen Lynn Hugueley is a state prisoner presently
incarcerated on death row at the Riverbend Maximum Security
Institution in Nashville, Tennessee. Before the court is
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 2). In addition, Plaintiff has filed
a complaint for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 which is before the court for an initial review
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Plaintiff's motion for
appointment of counsel is also before the Court.
Application to Proceed as a Pauper
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a), a prisoner bringing a civil action may
be permitted to file suit without prepaying the filing fee of
$350 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Because Plaintiff
properly submitted an in forma pauperis affidavit,
and because it appears from his submissions that he lacks
sufficient financial resources from which to pay the full
filing fee in advance, the application (Doc. No. 2) is
under § 1915(b), Plaintiff nonetheless remains
responsible for paying the full filing fee. See Bruce v.
Samuels, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 627, 632, n.3 (2016)
(assuming “without deciding that a mandamus petition
qualifies as a ‘civil action' or ‘appeal'
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)”); Gross v.
Experian, No. 10-cv-150-GFVT, 2015 WL 1038835, at *3-*4
(E.D. Ky. Mar. 10, 2015) (noting that mandamus actions are
civil proceedings to which the PLRA filing fee requirements
apply). The obligation to pay the fee accrues at the time the
case is filed, but the PLRA provides prisoner-petitioners the
opportunity to make a “down payment” of a partial
filing fee and to pay the remainder in installments.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ASSESSED the full $350
filing fee, to be paid as follows:
(1) The custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust-fund
account at the institution where he now resides is DIRECTED
to submit to the Clerk of Court, as an initial payment,
“20 percent of the greater of - (a) the average monthly
deposits to the petitioner's account; or (b) the average
monthly balance in Plaintiff's account for the 6-month
period immediately preceding the filing of the
complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
(2) After the initial filing fee is fully paid, the
trust-fund officer must withdraw from Plaintiff's account
and pay to the Clerk monthly payments equal to 20% of all
deposits credited to Plaintiff's account during the
preceding month, but only when the amount in the account
exceeds $10. Such payments must continue until the entire
$350 filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
(3) Each time the trust account officer makes a payment to
this court as required by this order, he must print a copy of
the prisoner's account statement showing all activity in
the account since the last payment made in accordance with
this order and submit it to the Clerk along with the payment.
All submissions to the court must clearly identify the
petitioner's name and the case number as indicated on the
first page of this order, and must be mailed to: Clerk,
United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee,
801 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37203.
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to
the Warden of the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution to
ensure that the custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust
account complies with that portion of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
pertaining to the payment of the filing fee. If Plaintiff is
transferred from his present place of confinement, the
custodian of his inmate trust-fund account MUST ensure that a
copy of this order follows Plaintiff to his new place of
confinement for continued compliance with this order.
Plaintiff is transferred to a different prison or is
released, he is ORDERED to notify the court immediately, in
writing, of his change of address.
Dismissal of the Complaint
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court was required to conduct an initial
screening of the complaint and to dismiss it if it fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, is frivolous
or malicious, or seeks relief from defendants who are immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); cf. Brewer
v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 84 F.App'x 570, 571-73
(6th Cir. 2003) (affirming a district court's dismissal
under § 1915(e)(2) of a complaint filed by a
non-prisoner who was proceeding in forma pauperis).
conducted such a review, as set forth in the accompanying
memorandum opinion, the Court finds that the complaint must
be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to consider it. Additionally, even if the Court
had subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.
same considerations that lead the court to dismiss this case
also compel the conclusion that an appeal would not be taken
in good faith. It is therefore CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter by
Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith, and ...