Atchison v. Collins, 01-40369.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation288 F.3d 177
PartiesThomas L. ATCHISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Ronald Reed, Doctor, Unit Health Authority of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Jimmy W. Bennett, Unit Health Authority of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Tamitra Fisher, HCS Nurse at Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Donna Latham, HCS Nurse at Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Eastham Unit; Alta White, HCS Nurse at Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Eastham Unit; Jerry N. Barratt, Assistant Warden of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Rodney L. Cooper, Assistant Warden of Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Eastham Unit; Kent Ramsey, Regional Director of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Charles Alexander, Doctor, Deputy Director of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Deloris Schiele, Health Care Service Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 01-40369.,01-40369.
Decision Date04 April 2002
288 F.3d 177
Thomas L. ATCHISON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Ronald Reed, Doctor, Unit Health Authority of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Jimmy W. Bennett, Unit Health Authority of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Tamitra Fisher, HCS Nurse at Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Donna Latham, HCS Nurse at Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Eastham Unit; Alta White, HCS Nurse at Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Eastham Unit; Jerry N. Barratt, Assistant Warden of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Rodney L. Cooper, Assistant Warden of Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Eastham Unit; Kent Ramsey, Regional Director of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Charles Alexander, Doctor, Deputy Director of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Deloris Schiele, Health Care Service Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-40369.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 4, 2002.

Page 178

Thomas L. Atchison, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Charles Kenneth Eldred, Matthew Tepper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Before: KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Prisoner Thomas L. Atchison appeals the denial of his motion to compel the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Page 179

(TDCJ) to deduct no more than twenty percent of his monthly income to pay for filing fees incurred as a result of actions he has filed in federal court. Atchison argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) requires him to pay no more than 20 percent of his income each month for filing fees, irrespective of the number of actions he has filed. The district court dismissed his motion, and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

After this court affirmed the dismissal of the underlying suit in this case, Atchison filed a post-judgment motion to compel Appellees to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), which according to Atchison authorizes the prison to take no more than 20 percent of his income each month to pay filing fees. The prison was instead taking 60 percent of his income to pay for three filing fees on which he owed money. The district court denied Atchison's motion, and he appeals.

In order to make indigent prisoners partially responsible for the costs of their litigation, Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to require prisoners to pay filing fees in monthly installments. Section 1915(b)(1) provides that:

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.1

In this case, Atchison challenges TDCJ's interpretation of § 1915(b)(2), which provides for the continued payment of the remainder of the filing fee after the initial payment has been made. Section 1915(b)(2) provides that:

[a]fter 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.

Appellees contend that the plain language of § 1915(b)(2) requires prisoners to pay separate monthly payments of 20 percent of their income for each filing fee on which they owe money. In the alternative, if we find that the statute is ambiguous, Appellees argue that the purpose of the statute is served by interpreting it to apply "per case" instead of "per prisoner." Atchison argues for the "per prisoner" interpretation of § 1915(b)(2). Construed liberally,2 Atchison's brief asserts that the "per case" interpretation of the statute could require the payment of 100 percent of a prisoner's income, placing an unreasonable burden upon his right of meaningful access to the courts.

II. DISCUSSION

Whether § 1915(b)(2) requires prisons to collect 20 percent of a prisoner's income

Page 180

per case filed or per prisoner is an issue of first impression in this circuit. Two of our sister...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Siluk v. Merwin, 11–3996.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 10, 2015
    ...Christensen v. Big Horn Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 374 Fed.Appx. 821, 829–33 (10th Cir.2010) (unpublished) (same); Atchison v. Collins, 288 F.3d 177, 180–81 (5th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (same); Lefkowitz v. Citi–Equity Grp., Inc., 146 F.3d 609, 612 (8th Cir.1998) (same); Newlin v. Helman, 1......
  • Torres v. O'quinn, 06-7770
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • July 13, 2010
    ...and (b)(2) are unambiguous and that their meaning can be determined by a plain reading of the statutory language. See Atchison v. Collins, 288 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir.2002) (per curiam). The court reasoned that the word “court” appearing in both § 1915(b)(1) and (b)(2) should be read to refe......
  • Renteria-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 01-60364.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 11, 2002
    ...majority's interpretation is in violation of the "common mandate of statutory construction to avoid absurd results." Atchison v. Collins, 288 F.3d 177, 181 (5th Cir.2002). Applying the majority's holding to vacaturs based on the merits would result in what I believe to be an absurd result a......
  • In re Fonke, 03-41389.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Texas
    • February 1, 2005
    ...any recapture of the exempt property would have no effect. This 321 B.R. 207 cannot be a proper interpretation. See Atchison v. Collins, 288 F.3d 177, 181 (5th Cir.2002) (citing United States v. Orleans Parish School Board, 244 F.3d 486, 493 (5th Cir.2001)) ("the common mandate of statutory......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT