Ingram v. Booth
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-00699
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Ingram v. Booth: Judge Menendez allowed Clifton Ingram to appeal without prepaying, but required payment of the full $605 fee through prison-account deductions.
Clifton Ingram may pursue his appeal without paying an initial partial appellate fee, but remains responsible for the full $605 appellate filing fee, which may be deducted from his prison account as funds become available.
What happened
In Ingram v. Booth, Clifton Ingram asked to appeal the dismissal of his case without paying the $605 appellate filing fee upfront. The earlier dismissal was based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court said it lacked power to hear the case.
The court found that Ingram qualified to proceed without prepaying the fee because he had no assets or means to pay the required initial partial payment. But this did not cancel his obligation to pay the entire $605 fee. The unpaid balance can be collected from his prison account as funds become available.
Judge Katherine Menendez granted Ingram’s application to proceed without prepaying the appellate fee. She ordered that he pay the full unpaid balance through the process required by federal law and directed the Clerk of Court to notify the officials at his institution.
The detailed version
- Ingram v. Booth · No. 0:23-cv-00699
- Katherine Menendez
- Oct. 15, 2024
Background
Clifton Ingram sought permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying court fees, in his appeal. He was appealing the earlier dismissal of this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The application concerned only payment of the appellate filing fee; this order did not decide whether the earlier dismissal was correct.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a prisoner who qualifies for IFP status generally may pay filing fees in installments instead of paying them all at the beginning. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to pay the full filing fee regardless of the appeal’s outcome. The initial partial appellate fee is generally calculated as 20 percent of the greater of the prisoner’s average monthly deposits or average monthly account balance over the preceding six months.
Federal law also provides that a prisoner cannot be prevented from filing an appeal because he has no assets or means to pay the initial partial fee. The court reviewed the information in the record, including an earlier finding that Ingram had no assets or means to pay that initial amount.
Ruling
The court found that Ingram was financially eligible to proceed IFP on appeal and that he did not have the assets or means to pay an initial partial appellate fee. It therefore GRANTED his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal, ECF 21.
The court also ordered Ingram to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory $605 appellate filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The funds are to be deducted from his prison account as they become available. The Clerk of Court must notify the authorities at the institution where Ingram is confined.
Effect of the order
The order permits Ingram to pursue the appeal without paying an initial partial appellate fee. It does not relieve him of the obligation to pay the full $605 fee. The order addresses appellate-fee payment and does not reach the merits of the underlying case or the appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- Triple S Farms LLC, Green Acres Dairy, LLC, Charles Fry and Emily Snyder, Rocky…Jul 2026
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Carebourn Capital, L.P…Mar 2026
- Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation…Feb 2026
- J.V.v. Asset Vision
- Stotesberyv. Muy Pizza-Tejas
- Paula A.v. O'Malley