Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

__A___________m___________lwl__________li_i____..ilii..t r
J Case 3:02-cv-01965-JBA Document 16 Filed 12/23/2004 Page1 of 2 i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT y
DISTRICLQTQE EN){~1§cT1cUT
g limi A »,.; l
WENDELL MINNIFIELD :
ZGHH DEC 23 F) 12* {U PR1soNER
v. : Case No. 3:02CV1965(JBA)
WAEWER EDWARDS II "‘*i»z§i€? Yi€*ém
RULING AND ORDER
On June 17, 2003, the court dismissed this case because
plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies before I
filing his complaint. Plaintiff now asks the court to stop I
deducting payments toward the filing fee from his account and to {
return all funds set aside for payment of the filing fee in this i
case. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's motion is denied. l
The Prison Litigation Reform Act has modified 28 U.S.C. ‘
§1915(b) to required all prisoners “to pay the full amount of the
filing fee.” In forma pauperis status only permits prisoners to
- defer payment of the filing fee and have funds removed from their
inmate accounts over time. Thus, although prisoners are not
required to pre-pay the entire filing fee, they remain liable for A
the fee. See, e.g., Tuomala v. State, No. Civ.02—2907(ADM/AJB),
2002 WL 32642917, at *3 n.3 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2002). The fact Q
that plaintiff's case was dismissed, does not alter his I
obligation to pay the filing fee. Nothing in the statute i
relieves him of his responsibility for payment of the entire
filing fee. See, e.g., In re Tyler, 110 F.3d 528, 529—30 (8“
n Cir. 1997) (“the PLRA makes prisoners responsible for their )









— · · -· Case 3:02-cv-01965-JBA Document 16 Filed 12/23/2004 Page2of2 N
filing fees the moment the prisoner brings a civil action or
files an appeal").
Plaintiff's motion [doc:. #15] is DENIED.
. I
SO ORDERED this V7? day of December, 2004, at New Haven,
Connecticut. i
J Bonci Arterton
.n ed States District Judge
E
}
I
1
E
1

J
2 1
m_c_w%.____ _-