Anderson v. Singletary

• Decision Date: 18 April 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-2697,96-2697
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 843, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 886 Bruce Douglas ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of the State of Florida, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 801

111 F.3d 801

10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 843, 10 Fla. L.

Weekly Fed. C 886

Bruce Douglas ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney

General of the State of Florida, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 96-2697.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 18, 1997.

James H. Burke, Jr. and William M. Kent, Asst. Federal Public Defenders, Jacksonville, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Robert Butterworth, Atty. Gen. Miami, FL and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondents-Appellees.

David S. Kris, Atty., Dept of Justice, Washington, DC, for Dept. of Justice.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and LAY ^*, Senior Circuit Judge.

HATCHETT, Chief Judge:

In this order, we hold that the filing fee requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), Title VIII of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996), do not apply to habeas corpus proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

In August 1992, movant Bruce Anderson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, challenging three 1987 state convictions. In May 1996, the district court denied Anderson's petition. Thereafter, Anderson filed in the district court a notice of appeal and a concurrent application for a certificate of probable cause. On June 14, 1996, the district court denied Anderson's application. Subsequently, Anderson moved this court for a certificate of appealability. On August 14, 1996, the clerk of this court informed Anderson that in order to proceed he had to pay the $105 appellate docketing and filing fee, or move, in accordance with the terms of the PLRA, for relief from the obligation to pay that entire fee in advance. In response, Anderson filed a Motion to Determine Applicability of Docket and Filing Fees, in which he contended that "[h]abeas corpus cases are not covered by" the PLRA and, therefore, this court should find the "docket and filing fees inapplicable to him." We requested briefing and granted oral argument on the following issue: "Whether the fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the [PLRA], apply to habeas corpus cases." ¹

II. DISCUSSION

Section 804(a) of the PLRA recast the procedures prisoners must follow when seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in civil actions. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) now reads:

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.

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a)(2) (West Supp.1997). Further, section 1915(b) now provides:

(b)(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 be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.

(3) 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 judgment.

(4) In no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(b) (West Supp.1997). Thus, the filing fee provisions of the PLRA apply to prisoners who bring a "civil action" or appeal a judgment in a "civil action or proceeding." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a)(2), (b)(1). We must ascertain whether, as used in the PLRA, these terms are meant to include habeas corpus proceedings. The six circuits that have explicitly addressed this issue thus far have answered the inquiry in the negative. See United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 741 (10th Cir.1997) (sections 2254 and 2255 proceedings are not "civil actions" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915); Naddi v. Hill, 106 F.3d 275, 277 (9th Cir.1997) ("[T]he forma pauperis provisions of the PLRA relating to prisoner civil actions and appeals do not apply to habeas corpus proceedings."); United States v. Cole, 101 F.3d 1076, 1077 (5th Cir.1996) ("We hold the Act is inapplicable to § 2255 petitions."); Santana v. United States, 98 F.3d 752, 754-56 (3d Cir.1996) (PLRA's filing fee payment requirements do not apply to habeas corpus cases or appeals brought under sections 2254 and 2255); Martin v. United States, 96 F.3d 853, 855-56 (7th Cir.1996) (PLRA does not apply to sections 2254 and 2255 proceedings); Reyes v. Keane, 90 F.3d 676, 678 (2d Cir.1996) ("[W]e conclude that Congress did not intend the PLRA to apply to petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.").

"In determining the meaning of the statute, we look not only to the particular statutory language, but to the design of the statute as a whole and to its object and policy." Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 158, 110 S.Ct. 997, 1001, 108 L.Ed.2d 132 (1990). Unfortunately for our purposes, Congress did not define the term "civil action" in the PLRA. Of course, a multitude of case law exists supporting the proposition that habeas corpus proceedings are "civil" in nature. See, e.g., Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 2119, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987) ("Our decisions have consistently recognized that habeas corpus proceedings are civil in nature."); Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 269, 98 S.Ct. 556, 563, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) ("It is well settled that habeas corpus is a civil proceeding."); Dickson v. Wainwright, 683 F.2d 348, 352 (11th Cir.1982) ("Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding...."). Applying the fundamental canon of statutory construction that directs us to interpret words according to their plain and ordinary meaning, see, for example, Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42, 100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979), we see some force to the argument that the PLRA applies to habeas corpus cases. See Santana, 98 F.3d at 754 ("At first blush, the plain meaning of the PLRA appears to require petitioners for habeas relief to fulfill its filing fee obligations."); Martin, 96 F.3d at 855 ("Both [sections 2254 and 2255] are technically civil proceedings and so come within the literal scope of the Act."). However, the language outlined above describing habeas corpus actions as "civil" is, for purposes of our inquiry, somewhat illusive, as habeas corpus actions are not purely (and thus not plainly) "civil actions."

[H]abeas corpus cases are, in effect, hybrid actions whose nature is not adequately captured by the phrase "civil action"; they are independent civil dispositions of completed criminal proceedings. The "civil" label is attached to habeas proceedings in order to distinguish them from "criminal" proceedings, which are intended to punish and require various constitutional guarantees.

Santana, 98 F.3d at 754 (citation omitted); see also Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 293-94, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1087, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969) ("It is, of course, true that habeas corpus proceedings are characterized as 'civil.' But the label is gross and inexact. Essentially, the proceeding is unique.") (citation and footnote omitted); Simmonds, 111 F.3d at 743 ("the nature of habeas and § 2255 actions is imprecise and contextually dependent"); Cole, 101 F.3d at 1077; Martin, 96 F.3d at 855 ("[H]abeas corpus is more accurately regarded as being sui generis (it has its own procedural rules, for example, and when invoked by a prisoner almost its sole office is to upend a criminal judgment) than as being either civil or criminal...."); 1 James S. Liebman & Randy Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 2.2, at 6 (2d ed.1994).

The Supreme Court's recent decision in O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 115 S.Ct. 992, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995), is illustrative on this point. In O'Neal, the Court held that "[w]hen a federal judge in a habeas proceeding is in grave doubt about whether a trial error of federal law had 'substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict,' that error is not harmless. And, the petitioner must win." 513 U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 994. In so doing, the Court rejected the contention that the civil standard for judging harmlessness applies in habeas corpus proceedings:

We also have examined the precedent upon which the State relies to support its view that appellants bear a "burden" of showing "prejudice" in civil cases. The State contends that, because a habeas proceeding, technically speaking, is a civil proceeding, see, e.g., Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 269, 98 S.Ct. 556, 563, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), this standard applies here.

One problem with this...