Crump v. 180 Degrees Halfway House Staff

Background

Willie James Crump, identified as a prisoner, submitted a certificate from a prison official seeking permission to proceed without paying the full filing fee immediately. The court treated the certificate as reflecting his intent to apply for fee-waiver status, although he had not submitted a complete application.

Under the prisoner-filing-fee statute, the initial partial fee is 20 percent of whichever is greater: the average monthly deposits or the average balance in the prisoner’s account during the six months before filing. The materials submitted by Mr. Crump showed average monthly deposits of $128.36 and an average balance of $47.57. Because the deposits were higher, the court calculated the initial partial fee as $25.67.

Court’s Order

The court ordered Mr. Crump to pay at least $25.67 within 21 days of the order’s date. The action will not proceed until he pays that amount. If he does not pay, the court will recommend dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order itself did not dismiss the case.

The court warned that paying the initial fee would not eliminate the rest of the filing fee. Mr. Crump would still owe $324.33 of the $350 statutory filing fee in installments, and facility officials could withdraw funds from his trust account for payment regardless of the action’s outcome.

The court also stated that, after payment of the initial fee, it would review the complaint to determine whether it stated a viable claim within the court’s jurisdiction. It warned that a finding that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim could result in a statutory “strike,” and that three or more strikes would significantly restrict Mr. Crump’s ability to proceed without prepaying fees in federal court.

The court identified possible problems with several theories in the complaint, including claims involving Medicare or alleged False Claims Act fraud, taxpayer-funded spending, claims on behalf of other halfway-house residents, the apparent revocation that returned Mr. Crump to prison, damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and claims concerning confinement conditions, religious exercise, retaliation, and equal protection. These were warnings about potential issues in the complaint, not rulings deciding those claims.

Disposition

The court ordered payment of the initial partial filing fee and stated that it would recommend dismissing the action without prejudice if Mr. Crump failed to pay within the required period. Judge John F. Docherty did not reach the merits of Mr. Crump’s claims in this order.