Michael Siluk, Jr. v. Catherine Merwin
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5824
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Michael Siluk, an indigent Pennsylvania state prisoner, incurred two federal filing fees: a $350 district-court fee and a $455 appellate fee, and sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), prisoners must pay an initial partial fee when funds exist and then monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month’s income until fees are paid.
- Siluk asked the court to limit monthly deductions to a single 20% payment applied sequentially to his outstanding fees (sequential recoupment).
- The government argued each fee triggers its own 20% monthly deduction, producing concurrent deductions (simultaneous recoupment) and potentially >20% total garnishment.
- The Third Circuit majority interpreted § 1915(b)(2) to permit only a single 20% monthly deduction per prisoner (sequential recoupment), citing text, statutory purpose, and constitutional-avoidance concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1915(b)(2) permits only one 20% monthly deduction per prisoner when multiple filing fees are owed | Siluk: only one 20% deduction monthly; fees paid sequentially in order incurred | Government: each fee triggers a separate 20% monthly deduction; deductions run concurrently per case | Court: Adopted sequential recoupment — capped at 20% of preceding month’s income per prisoner regardless of number of fees |
| Whether § 1915(b)(1) and (b)(2) must be read per-case such that monthly payments are per filing | Siluk: (b)(2) applies to total fees, not per-case; structure permits sequential payments | Government: (b)(1) applies per case, so (b)(2) should too; otherwise incongruity | Court: Found the subsections address different functions (initial per-case charge vs. ongoing collection) and do not compel per-case monthly multipliers |
| Whether simultaneous recoupment better effectuates PLRA deterrent purpose | Siluk: sequential still deters and protects access; other PLRA provisions (three-strikes) deter repeat frivolous suits | Government: simultaneous maximizes marginal cost per activity, better deters frivolous filings | Court: Purpose supports sequential rule — Congress wanted deterrence but not to foreclose meaningful access or impose punitive burdens |
| Whether simultaneous recoupment raises constitutional problems (access to courts/Eighth Amendment) | Siluk: concurrent garnishment could deprive inmates of necessities and impede access to courts | Government: prisons must provide basic necessities and supplies; no constitutional infirmity | Court: Adopted canonical avoidance — sequential construction avoids serious constitutional concerns about denying access or necessities |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (IFP statute protects indigent litigants from being forced to abandon meritorious claims due to destitution)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (prisoners must be afforded adequate legal tools to access courts)
- Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2001) (discussion of PLRA history and purposes)
- Torres v. O’Quinn, 612 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2010) (advocating sequential interpretation and focusing on access concerns)
- Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 2001) (interpreting § 1915 to cap monthly deductions at 20% total)
- Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding fees cumulate and supporting simultaneous recoupment)
- Pinson v. Samuels, 761 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (holding § 1915 requires per-case simultaneous monthly withdrawals)
- Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc., 146 F.3d 609 (8th Cir. 1998) (applying the 20%-per-case rule to deter frivolous filings)
- Atchison v. Collins, 288 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2002) (reading § 1915(b) consistently to require per-case monthly payments)