IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
January 10, 2007
LEE HOLDEN PARKER, #A-50207 PLAINTIFF,
JOHN EVANS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge
APPEAL NO. 06-3770
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 41). In this motion, he challenges the Court's order assessing the appellate fee (see Doc. 39). The basis for this motion is Plaintiff's reliance on Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As he correctly points out, that rule states that "[a] party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action . . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization...." FED.R.APP.P. 24(a)(3). What Plaintiff overlooks, however, is the final portion of that subsection: "unless a statute provides otherwise." FED.R.APP.P. 24(a)(3)(B). In Plaintiff's case, there is such a statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), which states: "if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee." Therefore, Plaintiff's reliance on Rule 24 is misplaced, and the instant motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WILLIAM D. STIEHL DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.