Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hopkins v. Bryant

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 4, 2015

TRACY R. HOPKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
JUSTIN D. BRYANT, et al., Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PHILIP M. FRAZIER, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court are plaintiff's motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief, a temporary restraining order, or an order to show cause (Doc. Nos. 87, 89). In this civil rights case, plaintiff Tracy Hopkins is challenging the conditions of his prison confinement between April and June, 2012. In these motions, Hopkins maintains that someone in the prison's accounting department has been deducting excessive sums from his trust fund account in violation of the September 24, 2013, Order. That Order (Doc. No. 13) directs the collection of a filing fee and requires monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to his trust fund account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Similar orders were entered in Hopkins' other civil case, Hopkins v. Klindworth, 13-939-MJR-SCW (once for the $350 filing fee and once for the $455 appeal fee).

Upon review of the trust fund account statements and other records, the motions lack merit. Filing fees for multiple cases cumulate. Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 436 (7th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000). A prisoner who files one suit must remit 20% of his monthly income to the Clerk until his fees have been paid; a prisoner who files a second suit or appeal must remit 40%; and so on. Newlin, 123 F.3d at 436. Menard Correctional Center has not made enough deductions from Hopkins' trust fund account. For example, Hopkins' income for the month of June, 2014, was $100. In July, 2014, his trust fund balance exceeded ten dollars, yet the payment made to the Clerk was $20 when it should have been $60 (20% of 100 for each of the three fee assessments). Similarly, plaintiff's income for October, 2014, was $100. In November, 2014, his balance exceeded ten dollars, yet the payment made was $20. Again, the payment to the Clerk should have been $60 (20% of $100 for each of the three fee assessments).

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motions (Doc. Nos. 87, 89) be DENIED. If this recommendation is adopted, the Clerk should be directed to forward a copy of this report to the trust fund officer at Menard Correctional Center.

NOTICE

PURSUANT to Title 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 73.1(b) of the Local Rules of Practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, any party may serve and file written OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within fourteen (14) days of service.

Please note: You are not to file an appeal as to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. At this point, it is appropriate to file OBJECTIONS, if any, to the Report and Recommendation/ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. An appeal is inappropriate until after the District Judge issues an Order either affirming or reversing the Report and Recommendation/ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.

Failure to file such OBJECTIONS shall result in a waiver of the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal, which are addressed in the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Video Views, Inc. v Studio 21, Ltd. and Joseph Sclafani, 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986) .


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.