Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Patrick Bernard Smith, a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, was ordered by the magistrate judge to pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.44. The order also advised him that he remained responsible for the balance of the full filing fee through periodic payments from his inmate trust account.
Smith objected, arguing that his indigence and authorization to proceed in forma pauperis entitled him to relief from the payment order. The district court liberally construed his objections as a motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s pretrial order under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
The Court’s Holding
The court denied reconsideration and overruled Smith’s objections. It held that the magistrate judge properly imposed the initial partial filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and correctly notified Smith of his obligation to make monthly payments toward the remaining fee under § 1915(b)(2).
Smith’s prisoner-account statement showed that he had sufficient funds to pay $1.44. The court also explained that in forma pauperis status excuses prepayment of the full filing fee but does not eliminate a prisoner’s obligation to pay it. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner granted in forma pauperis status may still be required to pay an initial partial filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
- In forma pauperis status relieves a prisoner from prepaying the entire filing fee; it does not waive the fee itself.
- Smith was ordered to pay $1.44 within 30 days, with noncompliance potentially resulting in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between permission to proceed without full prepayment and exemption from filing fees. For incarcerated litigants, § 1915 generally requires an initial payment based on available funds followed by monthly payments from the inmate trust account.
It also reflects the deferential standard governing district-court review of a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order: reconsideration is warranted only when the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.