Reported / Citable
Background
Texas prisoner Jeremy Wayne Mills filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district judge referred the case to U.S. Magistrate Judge David L. Horan for pretrial management.
Mills initially failed to attach a certificate of inmate trust account, prompting a deficiency order. He later submitted the certificate, which reported average monthly deposits of $94.67, an average monthly balance of $28.24, and a current balance of $153.62.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended denying Mills’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the filing fee for a habeas action is $5, the magistrate judge concluded that Mills’s verified account information showed he could pay the fee without undue financial hardship.
The magistrate judge further recommended ordering Mills to pay the $5 fee within 21 days after any order adopting the recommendation, or within another reasonable period set by the district court. If Mills failed to pay, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and obey a court order. The filing was a recommendation, not a final ruling by the district judge, and the parties had 14 days to file specific written objections.
Key Takeaways
- An incarcerated habeas petitioner must show that paying the filing fee would cause undue financial hardship to qualify for in forma pauperis status.
- Mills’s current trust-account balance of $153.62 was sufficient to cover the $5 habeas filing fee.
- Failure to pay within the period set by the district court could result in dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that prisoner status alone does not establish inability to pay. Courts examine verified trust-account information and compare the applicant’s available resources with the modest filing fee required in a federal habeas case.
It also underscores the procedural distinction between a magistrate judge’s recommendation and a final district-court order: the recommendation remains subject to objections and adoption or rejection by the presiding district judge.