104 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 1997), 96-1053, Robbins v. Switzer

Docket Nº:96-1053, 96-1142, 96-2212, 96-2213 and 96-2855.
Citation:104 F.3d 895
Party Name:Martin D. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clarence SWITZER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Martin D. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael R. CLOUD, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Martin D. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY COURT, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Martin D. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.L. HOLMES, et al., Defendants
Case Date:January 07, 1997
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 895

104 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 1997)

Martin D. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Clarence SWITZER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Martin D. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Michael R. CLOUD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Martin D. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ORANGE COUNTY COURT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Martin D. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

G.L. HOLMES, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Martin D. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

C.R. HALL, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 96-1053, 96-1142, 96-2212, 96-2213 and 96-2855.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 7, 1997

Submitted Dec. 6, 1996.

Page 896

Martin D. Robbins, Bedford, IN (submitted on brief), pro se.

Pamela Carter, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before COFFEY, FLAUM, and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

While in state prison, Martin Robbins filed several lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Some were dismissed because the pleadings were inscrutable, and Robbins did not respond to judicial orders calling for clarity. Other complaints were clear enough to reveal that the suits are barred by judicial or prosecutorial immunity, or the principle of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), or fail to state claims on which relief may be granted. Robbins appealed five of his defeats. We must decide how the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Title VIII of Pub.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (effective April 26, 1996) ("the Act"), applies to cases in which a person who is imprisoned at the time of the appeals is released before the full filing and docket fees have been paid.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), as amended by the Act,

A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding without prepayment of fees or security therefor, in addition to filing the affidavit filed under paragraph (1), shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.

A prisoner who begins a civil action or files an appeal is not entitled to proceed without prepayment, a privilege § 1915(a)(1) extends to non-prisoners. Under § 1915(b):

Page 897

(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court shall assess and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of

(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's account; or

(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal.

(2) After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP