Shortymacknifisent v. Universal Life Church, The

Background

The case came before Judge Katherine M. Menendez after United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued an order and report and recommendation. Judge Wright found that Archbishop Kingpimp Shortymacknifisent qualified as a prisoner with no assets or means to pay an initial partial filing fee. She also concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendant was a private organization and was not alleged to have acted under authority of state law. She recommended dismissing the case without prejudice.

The plaintiff filed an objection, an affidavit, an application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, and a petition to vacate the filing fee. The district court construed his filings as objecting mainly to the requirement that he pay the unpaid filing fee. The court noted that it was unclear whether he intended to object to dismissal, and that he had thanked the magistrate judge for suggesting dismissal without prejudice.

Filing Fee

The court explained that prisoners who qualify to proceed without paying the full filing fee at the outset are still generally required to pay the full fee over time. Because the plaintiff had not paid a filing fee or submitted an application when he filed the case, the clerk sent him a letter requesting one or the other. The plaintiff said he did not receive the letter and argued that requiring payment was unfair.

The court rejected that argument. It ruled that the plaintiff was not required to pay the balance as a sanction for failing to answer the letter. Instead, the requirement came from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), which requires payment of the unpaid balance even when a prisoner has no assets or means to pay an initial partial fee. The court affirmed the determination that the plaintiff must eventually pay the unpaid $350 balance. It denied the plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepaying fees as moot and denied his petition to vacate the filing fee.

Dismissal and Disposition

The court agreed with Judge Wright that the complaint asserted a First Amendment claim against the Universal Life Church but did not plausibly allege that the church acted under color of state law. Because the alleged conduct had no source in state authority and the defendant could not plausibly be treated as a state actor, the complaint failed to state a claim under § 1983.

Judge Menendez accepted the order and report and recommendation, overruled the plaintiff’s objection, denied the application to proceed without prepaying fees as moot, denied the petition to vacate the filing fee, and dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim.