Perkins v. Daniels
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-01624
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Perkins v. Daniels, Judge Menendez granted Perkins’s appeal-fee waiver application but ordered a $35 initial payment.
Victor B. Perkins must pay the $35 initial partial appellate filing fee; the remaining appellate filing fee will be deducted under federal law.
What happened
In Perkins v. Daniels, Victor B. Perkins asked to appeal without paying the entire filing fee upfront.
The court granted his application to proceed without prepaying the appellate fee, but ordered him to pay $35 initially. The remaining balance will be deducted as required by federal law.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez issued the order on January 11, 2023. The court said it set the $35 amount because Perkins had not submitted a certified copy of his inmate account statement.
The detailed version
- Perkins v. Daniels · No. 0:22-cv-01624
- Katherine Menendez
- Jan. 11, 2023
Background
Victor B. Perkins applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee for his appeal and filed a motion to proceed without prepayment. The court had previously directed him to submit a certified copy of his prison trust-account statement for the six months before he filed his notice of appeal. Perkins later submitted a renewed application and an inmate trust-account statement, but the court found that the copy was not certified.
Ruling
The court granted Perkins’s application to proceed without prepaying the appellate filing fee. It ordered him to pay an initial partial appellate filing fee of $35. The balance of the appellate filing fee will be deducted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The opinion does not separately state a disposition for the motion to proceed without prepayment.
Reasoning
The court calculated the initial partial fee under the procedure described in Henderson v. Norris. The court stated that when it does not receive a certified account statement within 30 days after the notice of appeal, it may calculate the initial partial fee at $35 or another reasonable amount based on the available information. The order does not address the merits of the underlying case or appeal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.