Hamre v. Melton
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:19-cv-02641
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Hamre v. Melton, Judge Wright rejected a recommendation to dismiss John Hamre’s case, giving him 90 days to show efforts to pay the initial filing fee.
John Hamre must report within 90 days any efforts to comply with the initial partial filing-fee order; the case was not dismissed by this order, but the order states that failure to respond will result in dismissal.
What happened
In Hamre v. Melton, John Hamre, who was in state custody, asked to proceed without paying the full filing fee at the start of his civil case. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case after Hamre did not pay the required $12.17 initial payment. Hamre objected, saying he could not raise the money and that the jail would not let him pay it.
The court explained that federal law requires prisoners who receive permission to proceed without prepaying fees to pay the filing fee in installments, but also prevents dismissal when a prisoner lacks the money to make the initial payment. The record did not show whether Hamre failed to pay because of circumstances beyond his control or whether he had tried to authorize prison officials to withdraw the payment.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright rejected the recommendation to dismiss the case. She gave Hamre 90 days to tell the court about his efforts to comply with the initial-fee order and stated that failing to do so will result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Hamre v. Melton · No. 0:19-cv-02641
- Wilhelmina Wright
- June 4, 2020
Background
John Hamre filed a civil complaint and applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because Hamre was in state custody in connection with criminal charges, the prisoner-fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) applied. Those provisions require a prisoner who receives permission to proceed without prepaying the fee to pay the full fee in installments, beginning with an initial partial filing fee when funds exist.
Hamre’s prison trust-account records showed average monthly deposits of $60.83 and an average monthly balance of $35.55 during the six months before he filed his complaint. Using the statutory formula, the magistrate judge calculated an initial partial filing fee of $12.17 and ordered Hamre to pay at least that amount within 30 days. The magistrate judge warned that failure to pay could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
After Hamre did not pay, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice and denying Hamre’s application to proceed without prepaying fees as moot. Hamre objected, stating that he could not come up with $12.17 and that the jail would not allow him to pay it.
Analysis
The court held that § 1915(b)(4) prohibits dismissing a prisoner’s case solely because the prisoner lacks the assets or means to pay the initial partial filing fee. Although Hamre’s account records showed $365 in total deposits during the relevant six-month period and an account balance of $21.38 when the records were prepared, the court found it conceivable that he lacked the means to pay when the fee was assessed in November 2019.
The court also explained that, before dismissing a case for nonpayment, a district court must determine whether the prisoner attempted to comply with the fee order. Prisoners may need to authorize prison officials to withdraw money from their accounts, and payment may be delayed or prevented by circumstances outside the prisoner’s control. The magistrate judge had not inquired into why Hamre failed to pay or whether he had attempted to authorize a withdrawal.
Because the record did not establish whether Hamre’s nonpayment resulted from circumstances beyond his control, the court concluded that dismissal was premature. The court stated that Hamre must show that he attempted to comply by authorizing prison officials to withdraw the required payment.
Disposition
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright rejected the January 24, 2020 Report and Recommendation. The order did not dismiss the case at that time. Instead, it required Hamre to advise the court within 90 days of his efforts to comply with the initial partial filing-fee order and stated that failure to do so will result in dismissal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.