Siluk v. Merwin

Citation783 F.3d 421
Decision Date10 April 2015
Docket NumberNo. 11–3996.,11–3996.
PartiesMichael E. SILUK, Jr., Appellant v. Catherine MERWIN, Director of Perry County Domestic Relations Section.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Paige H. Forster (argued)1 , Patrick M. Emery, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, Gregory B. Jordan, Esq., PNC, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant.

Jeffrey E. Sandberg (argued), United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge and CHAGARES, GARTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

McKEE, Chief Judge.

We are asked to interpret provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requiring federal prisons to withdraw certain amounts from prisoner trust accounts to pay court filing fees.

Although the amount of money involved may seem insignificant, the issue is of the utmost importance because it impacts indigent prisoners' access to the courts and it has resulted in a conflict among the Courts of Appeals.2

Under the PLRA,3 a prisoner who files a civil complaint or an appeal in the federal courts is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee even if s/he is filing in forma pauperis (“IFP”).4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), after making an initial payment, a prisoner must make monthly payments in the amount of 20 percent of the preceding month's income until the filing fee is paid.

Michael Siluk is an indigent state prisoner who was allowed to file IFP in the district court and this Court. He currently owes a filing fee to both courts ($350 to the Clerk of the District Court and $455 to the Clerk of this Court which was the applicable appeal fee at the time the notice of appeal was filed). Siluk argues that § 1915(b)(2) only requires a 20–percent deduction from his prison account each month until both fees are paid, and that the deductions should be made in the order in which they were incurred (referred to as “sequential collection,” “sequential recoupment,” or “per inmate approach”). The government argues that § 1915(b) requires that a monthly 20–percent deduction must be made concurrently for fees owed in both courts until the fees are paid (referred to as “concurrent recoupment,” “simultaneous recoupment,” or “per case approach”). The latter interpretation would result in a 40–percent deduction from Siluk's account each month that would continue until both fees are completely paid.

On January 11, 2013 this Court entered an order which among other things granted Siluk's motion to proceed IFP; referred the petition to combine payments to a merits panel; and directed the Clerk of the Court to appoint pro bono counsel on behalf of Siluk to “address whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires recoupment of multiple encumbrances sequentially or simultaneously.” For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Congress intended to cap the monthly debit for filing fees at 20 percent of a prisoner's monthly income, even where, as here, an inmate owes more than one filing fee.5

I. Factual Background

When this suit was filed, Siluk was an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview (“SCI Rockview”). He had filed various actions in state court claiming that state authorities had wrongfully intercepted his federal income tax refund and applied it to a child-support arrearage he allegedly owed. After Siluk's state court litigation proved unsuccessful, he filed this pro se complaint in federal district court, alleging that Catherine Merwin—the Director of Perry County Domestic Relations Section—had deprived him of his federal tax refund, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court granted Siluk's motion to proceed IFP and ordered the collection of an initial partial filing fee, followed by monthly installments as required by § 1915(b).6 The court subsequently dismissed Siluk's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).7

Siluk appealed and applied to proceed IFP before us. He also filed a motion to combine payment of his filing fees which was referred to the merits panel. Siluk seeks to make one combined payment of 20 percent of his prison account deposits, rather than a 40–percent deduction (20 percent for each fee owed), as urged by the government. The sequential collection he requests would postpone collection of the filing fee for this appeal until after his filing fee has been completely paid to the district court.

Siluk maintains that sequentially debiting his inmate account will leave him with sufficient funds to maintain a minimum quality of life that would otherwise be jeopardized. He purportedly lives on prison wages of around $40.00 a month after the 20–percent deduction of the District Court filing fee. According to Siluk, he is required to pay for such items as: “soap, shampoo, razors, [and] deodorant” to maintain basic hygiene.8 Siluk must also pay for the cost of proceeding in this matter. He claims that those costs include such incidentals as “paper, pens, copies, carbon paper, [and] mail.”9

II. Statutory Background

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, federal courts are authorized to allow indigent persons, including prisoners, to pursue litigation without pre-paying fees and costs.10 Congress enacted the IFP statute “to ensure that administrative court costs and filing fees ... would not prevent indigent persons from pursuing meaningful litigation.”11 Section 1915 was amended by the PLRA, “largely in response to concerns about the heavy volume of frivolous prisoner litigation in the federal courts.”12 Prior to the passage of the PLRA, courts could waive filing fees entirely.13 However, in enacting § 1915(b)(1), Congress required that all indigent prisoners filing civil actions or appeals eventually “pay the full amount of a filing fee.”14

Section 1915(b) allows prisoners who qualify for IFP status to make an initial partial payment, followed by monthly payments against the remaining balance.15 Section 1915(b)(1) requires an initial debit for partial payment of outstanding court fees when the funds in the prisoner's account equal “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.”16 Section 1915(b)(2) provides that, after the initial partial payment, the inmate must make “monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income” whenever the account exceeds $10.00.17 The prison where the inmate is housed is responsible for withdrawing this money and “forward[ing] payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court.”18 This monthly payment scheme continues until the filing fee is fully discharged.19

This scheme is relatively clear when an inmate only owes one filing fee. However, it is not clear how the deductions should be made when a prisoner owes more than one filing fee arising from multiple lawsuits or appeals of a single lawsuit.20

In this case, Siluk faces the prospect of paying two fees: (1) the $350 district court filing fee that he incurred by filing his pro se complaint; and (2) the $455 fee he incurred in this court for pursuing an appeal of the district court judgment. All parties agree that Siluk must pay both fees eventually and that these fees should be deducted from his inmate account; however, there is a highly contested legal question as to the rate at which these fees should be paid.

In his petition, Siluk requests that this Court order that 20 percent of his account balance, rather than 40 percent of his account balance, should be deducted each month, toward the payment of these fees. That is, Siluk requests that a single 20–percent payment be deducted, rather than two 20–percent payments (one toward his district court fee and one toward his appellate fee).

The question presented by Siluk's request for consolidation of fees, as interpreted by the motions panel and as briefed by counsel is whether § 1915(b)(2) allows only a maximum of 20 percent to be taken from his monthly income regardless of the number of cases or appeals filed, or whether the PLRA requires 20 percent taken each month for each case or appeal that he undertakes.

These two conflicting interpretations of § 1915(b)(2) are referred to in the briefs and in the cases as “sequential” and “simultaneous” recoupment.

Sequential recoupment refers to the method of payment whereby a single 20–percent payment is withdrawn on a monthly basis. For example, if an inmate had $10 in his or her account on the first of the month, the most that he or she could be required to pay toward his or her filings fees would be $2 (20 percent of the $10). That one payment is withdrawn monthly, and the cases and/or appeals that an inmate has filed will be paid off sequentially. Under such a rule, an inmate's account could not be emptied in a single month based solely on the clerk's withdrawal of a filing fee.

As applied to this case, sequential recoupment dictates that Siluk's account would be subject to a single 20–percent charge each month, and these charges would be used to pay off: (1) first his district court fee; and (2) then, only after his first fee was paid, his fee to this court for his appeal.

Simultaneous recoupment on the other hand, refers to a protocol whereby 20 percent of the inmate's account is withdrawn for each case or appeal. Under such a rule, fees are paid off simultaneously, and an inmate's account could be emptied in a single month by the clerk of the court. For example, unlike for the sequential rule, under this reading of the statute if an inmate had $10 and owed money in five cases the clerk would deduct $2 for each case thus emptying the inmate's account.

As applied to this case, simultaneous recoupment dictates that the clerk of this Court and the clerk of the District Court would each withdraw 20 percent of Siluk's account simultaneously.

Given the PLRA's text,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Bruce v. Samuels
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 12, 2016
    ...(case below) (adopting per-case approach), with Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264, 276–277 (C.A.2 2001) ; Siluk v. Merwin, 783 F.3d 421, 427–436 (C.A.3 2015) ; and Torres v. O'Quinn, 612 F.3d 237, 241–248 (C.A.4 2010) (adopting per-prisoner approach).2 At oral argument, Bruce's counsel info......
  • Bruce v. Samuels
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 12, 2016
    ...(C.A.D.C.2014) (case below) (adopting per-case approach), with Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264, 276–277 (C.A.2 2001) ; Siluk v. Merwin, 783 F.3d 421, 427–436 (C.A.3 2015) ; and Torres v. O'Quinn, 612 F.3d 237, 241–248 (C.A.4 2010) (adopting per-prisoner approach).2 At oral argument, Bruce......
  • McKinney v. Lanigan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • October 17, 2022
    ...... (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2015) (citing Young v. Quintan ,. 960 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1992), superseded by statute as. recognized in Siluk v. Merwin , 783 F.3d 421, 435 n. 77 (3d Cir. 2015)). A denial of access to a restroom will. thus only implicate an Eighth Amendment ......
  • McKinney v. Lanigan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • October 17, 2022
    ...... (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2015) (citing Young v. Quintan ,. 960 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1992), superseded by statute as. recognized in Siluk v. Merwin , 783 F.3d 421, 435 n. 77 (3d Cir. 2015)). A denial of access to a restroom will. thus only implicate an Eighth Amendment ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Part Two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 65, November 2015
    • November 1, 2015
    ...and Guidance Center, Michigan) U.S. Appeals Court COURT COSTS PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act IN FORMA PAUPERIS Siluk v. Merwin, 783 F.3d 421 (3rd Cir. 2015). An indigent state prisoner who had been allowed to file in forma pauperis commenced an action alleging that the director of a cou......
  • Part Two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 65, November 2015
    • November 1, 2015
    ...Thompson, 69 F.Supp.3d 656 (W.D.Ky. 2014). 4, 7, 8, 9, 23, 29, 40 Shinault v. Hawks, 782 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2015). 4, 35 Siluk v. Merwin, 783 F.3d 421 (3rd Cir. 2015). 1, Sloane v. Borawski, 64 F.Supp.3d 473 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). 11, 48 Sluss v. United States Department of Justice, 78 F.Supp.3d......
  • Part One: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 65, November 2015
    • November 1, 2015
    ...Reform Act, In Forma Pauperis ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: Court Costs, PLRA- Prison Litigation Reform Act, Inmate Funds Siluk v. Merwin, 783 F.3d 421 (3rd Cir. 2015). An indigent state prisoner who had been allowed to file in forma pauperis commenced an action alleging that the director of a count......

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