Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 15, 2023

Ingram v. Booth

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:23-cv-00699
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureSection 1983
In one sentence

Ingram v. Booth: Judge Docherty granted Ingram’s fee waiver and ordered him to clarify Booth’s capacity within 14 days.

Who this affects

Clifton Ingram must pay the remaining $330 filing fee and clarify the capacity or capacities in which he is suing Sgt. Booth. The clerk and officials at the facility where Ingram is confined must process or receive notice of the payment obligation.

What happened

In Ingram v. Booth, Clifton Ingram asked to proceed without paying the full court filing fee. The court found that he had made a good-faith effort to pay the initial partial fee and could not pay the remaining amount at that time.

The court granted Ingram’s application, but ordered him to pay the remaining $330 of the $350 filing fee through deductions handled under federal law. The court also directed the clerk to notify officials at the facility where Ingram is confined about that obligation.

The order also required Ingram to file a one-page addendum within 14 days identifying whether he was suing Sgt. Booth in an individual capacity, an official capacity, or both. Judge Docherty stated that, without the addendum, the court would treat the claims as official-capacity claims only. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ingram v. Booth · No. 0:23-cv-00699
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
Sept. 15, 2023

Background

Clifton Ingram applied to proceed without prepaying court fees. The court considered the federal statute governing proceedings by prisoners who cannot pay the initial partial filing fee. The court noted that an initial partial filing fee of $31.26 had been assessed and that Ingram had paid $20.00. It found that he had made a good-faith effort to pay and treated him as having no assets or means to pay the rest of that initial fee.

The complaint appeared to include claims alleging violations of constitutional rights against an individual identified as “Sgt. Booth.” The court explained that constitutional claims generally must be brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against certain state actors for violating federal rights. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim may be brought against an individual in an individual capacity, an official capacity, or both. That choice affects the relief available and how the defendant must be served.

Ruling

The court granted Ingram’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. It ordered him to pay the remaining $330 of the action’s $350 statutory filing fee through the procedures required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). It also ordered the clerk to notify authorities at the facility where Ingram was confined about that payment obligation.

The court ordered Ingram to submit an addendum of no more than one page specifying the capacity or capacities in which he was suing Booth for purposes of any § 1983 claims. The addendum was due within 14 days of the order’s date. If Ingram did not submit it, the court would assume that he was suing Booth in Booth’s official capacity only. The order addressed fees, pleading clarification, and service-related matters; it did not resolve the merits of Ingram’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.