Edmonson v. Fremgen, 590 F. App'x 613

Jason Edmonson, an indigent Wisconsin prisoner, was granted leave to appeal two civil matters without prepayment of the $195 filing fees under Wis. Stat. § 814.29(1m).
Wisconsin law requires prisoners seeking in forma pauperis appeals to submit 6 months of trust-account statements, an affidavit of assets, and a signed authorization permitting the agency controlling the inmate trust account to forward funds to the court when the account exceeds $10.
Edmonson submitted the required documents and two authorization forms; the Wisconsin Court of Appeals clerk issued orders allowing appeal without prepayment and directed prison authorities to freeze his trust account pending collection of the fee balance.
Edmonson sued the clerk in federal court alleging: an unconstitutional taking (Fifth Amendment), denial of due process (insufficient notice on the authorization form), denial of access to courts, and (later abandoned) a Fourth Amendment seizure claim; he also raised state-law contract/tort theories.
The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unconstitutional taking	Freezing the trust account to collect fees constituted a taking of property	Fee is a reasonable user fee; freezing simply enforces collection of voluntarily-incurred fee	No taking — collecting a reasonable fee via freeze is not an unconstitutional taking (reasonable user fee)
Due process (notice)	Authorization form did not warn that account would be frozen, so plaintiff lacked adequate notice	Statute itself mandates freezing; prisoners are charged with knowledge of statutory controls over property	No due-process violation — statute supplies notice; form need not repeat statutory command
Access to courts	Account freeze forced borrowing and reduced funds, impairing ability to pursue appeals	Statute enables appeals without full prepayment and thus increases access to courts	No denial of access — statute facilitates appeals; plaintiff failed to plead any underlying meritorious claim he was prevented from litigating (Christopher standard)
1915(g) strike assessment	Dismissal for failure to state a claim should not count as a strike	Dismissal for failure to state a claim is a qualifying strike under § 1915(g)	Strike affirmed for this dismissal; appeal creates a second strike

United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U.S. 52 (1989) (a reasonable user fee is not a taking when imposed to reimburse government service costs)
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013) (fee/takings principles regarding reasonable user fees)
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (plaintiff alleging denial of access must identify underlying meritorious claim and show prejudice)
Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (1982) (owners are charged with knowledge of state statutes affecting property)