Charles Sultan v. James Fenoglio
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 71
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Sultan, an Illinois inmate, filed an Eighth Amendment suit in Dec 2012 alleging unsanitary conditions and denial of medical care at Lawrence Correctional Center.
- He moved to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted the required certified prison trust-account statement showing a negative balance (≈ -$300); the district court granted IFP and assessed a $2.02 initial partial filing fee.
- Prison administrators failed to forward the $2.02 to the court despite Sultan submitting payment authorization forms, filing grievances, and his daughter attempting a Western Union payment; a Western Union receipt was submitted but rejected as proof.
- After the magistrate ordered Sultan to show cause and denied an extension request, the district court dismissed the suit with prejudice for failure to prosecute; Sultan’s payment arrived at the courthouse the same day he moved for reconsideration.
- The Seventh Circuit concluded Sultan was not at fault because inmates lack direct control over disbursements from prison trust accounts, §1915(b)(4) protects indigent prisoners from being barred when they have no assets, and the record showed Sultan attempted multiple means to pay.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings; Sultan’s request for appointed counsel was waived on appeal but may be renewed in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to pay initial partial filing fee was proper | Sultan argued he attempted payment but prison administrators failed to remit; dismissal penalized him for lack of control over trust account | Court/defendants treated nonpayment as failure to prosecute and held Sultan responsible to ensure payment | Vacated: dismissal abused discretion; Sultan not responsible where he complied with statutory submission and tried to cause payment |
| Whether §1915(b)(4) permits dismissal when prisoner’s trust account is negative | Sultan: negative balance counts as "no assets," so suit must proceed under §1915(b)(4) despite nonpayment | Implicitly, district court treated later small deposits as triggering immediate payment obligation | Held: §1915(b)(4) bars denying access when prisoner has no assets; negative balance treated as zero and prevents dismissal |
| Whether prison administrators’ failure to remit justifies sanctioning prisoner | Sultan: prison administrators' conflict of interest and failure to honor court order should not penalize him | Court treated payment responsibility as the prisoner’s and dismissed for nonpayment | Held: prisoner should not be penalized where he sought payment authorization and filed grievances; prison’s failure cannot be imputed to inmate |
| Whether appointment of pro bono counsel was required | Sultan argued district court abused discretion by not recruiting counsel | Defendants: denial without prejudice appropriate; issue not raised below or in opening brief | Held: argument waived on appeal; motions were denied without prejudice and may be renewed on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Butts, 745 F.3d 309 (7th Cir.) (prisoner lacks unilateral control over trust-account disbursements)
- Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir.) (prison trust-account mechanics and inmate responsibility for fee payments)
- Hatchet v. Nettles, 201 F.3d 651 (5th Cir.) (prisoner’s limited control over trust account and fee-processing issues)
- Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895 (7th Cir.) (interpretation of §1915(b)(4) and permitting appeals when account balance is zero)
- Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.) (discussion of prison compliance with court-ordered fee remittances)
- Hall v. Stone, 170 F.3d 706 (7th Cir.) (contempt finding against federal warden for failing to remit payment)
- Cosby v. Meadows, 351 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir.) (dismissal affirmed where prisoner intentionally spent funds to avoid fees)
- Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844 (9th Cir.) (procedural compliance with §1915 and trust-account statements)
- Roller v. Gunn, 107 F.3d 227 (4th Cir.) (interpretation of §1915(b)(2) regarding periodic payments)
- Katerinos v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 368 F.3d 733 (7th Cir.) (procedural rule on timely motions and appeals)