Ortiz-Rivas v. Mnuchin, 2:20-cv-01844

Plaintiff Ricky Ortiz‑Rivas sued, alleging his $1,700 CARES Act payment was intercepted to pay child support and that this violated federal law; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim because the CARES Act authorizes offsets for delinquent child support.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal; the Seventh Circuit opened an appeal but dismissed it for failure to pay the $505 appellate fee and ordered collection under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (28 U.S.C. §1915(b)).
The district clerk sent the plaintiff’s prior institution directions to collect 20% of monthly account income and forward payments once the balance exceeds $10, per §1915(b)(2).
Plaintiff submitted multiple letters requesting (a) that the court stop institution collections and refund amounts already taken, (b) remission of the filing fees because he is indigent and did not intend to appeal, and (c) that the Department of Corrections was collecting improperly when monthly income was under $10.
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal triggers the §1915(b) fee obligation regardless of subjective intent, that the institution’s collection method comports with §1915(b)(2), and that it would not remit or suspend either the district or appellate filing fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's/ Court's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff can avoid appellate fee collection by claiming he didn’t intend to appeal	Ortiz‑Rivas: he never intended to appeal and did not complete appellate forms, so collection is erroneous	Notice of appeal was filed and triggers fee obligation under §1915(b); intent is irrelevant to the statutory duty to pay	Denied — filing a notice of appeal triggers obligation to pay; collections proper
Whether the institution’s method of withholding 20% violates §1915(b)(2) when monthly income is under $10	Ortiz‑Rivas: prison improperly deducted 20% in months where his income was less than $10, in contempt of court	The clerk’s collection directive and §1915(b)(2) require monthly calculation of 20% and forwarding payments each time the account exceeds $10; withholding to accumulate until $10 is permissible	Denied — institution’s practice complies with §1915(b)(2)
Whether the court should remit/suspend filing fees due to indigence or mistake about appeal	Ortiz‑Rivas: indigent and believed initial partial fee covered him; asks court to remit fees and refund deductions	The PLRA and §1915 require payment of fees (in installments for incarcerated persons); inability to pay does not eliminate obligation	Denied — court will not remit or suspend fees; plaintiff owes district and appellate fees

Scholl v. Mnuchin, 489 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (district court addressing IRS withholding of CARES Act payments from prisoners)
Robertson v. French, 949 F.3d 347 (7th Cir. 2020) (explaining prison trust‑account collection mechanics under §1915(b))