Shauntae Robertson v. Glendal French
949 F.3d 347
| 7th Cir. | 2020Background
- Plaintiff Shauntae Robertson, an Illinois state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unconstitutional confinement and medical denial while at Pontiac Correctional Center.
- Robertson filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with an affidavit showing $219.36 in his prison trust account and occasional support from his mother; the court granted IFP.
- Prior to filing the IFP affidavit, Robertson had a finalized $4,000 settlement agreement with the state, but the money had not yet been deposited into his prison trust account when he filed.
- The $4,000 was deposited about 12 months after the IFP filing; the prison/Trust Fund Office failed to remit required §1915(b) payments to the court.
- Years later, defendants moved to dismiss after discovering the settlement; the district court dismissed with prejudice, treating the nondisclosure as an "untrue" allegation of poverty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must expected future income (not yet received) be disclosed on an IFP affidavit? | No — §1915(a) requires disclosure of assets the prisoner "possesses" at filing; future payments are not possessed. | Yes — anticipated settlement is a "thing of value" and should be disclosed. | The PLRA requires disclosure of current assets only; expected future payments need not be disclosed. |
| Does failure to disclose future income make the IFP affidavit "untrue" requiring dismissal? | No — omission of anticipated income is not automatically "untrue," dismissal requires a deliberate misrepresentation. | Yes — nondisclosure is fraud on the court warranting dismissal. | "Untrue" under §1915(e)(2)(A) means dishonest or deliberate misrepresentation; inadvertent omissions do not justify dismissal. |
| Is there a continuing duty to update the court when funds are later deposited into the prison trust account? | No separate duty — deposit into the prison trust account effectively notifies the custodial agency, which must remit §1915(b) payments. | Prisoner must ensure payments and proactively update court. | Deposit into the institutional trust account suffices as disclosure; prisoner should not lose litigation rights because the prison failed to remit payments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305 (7th Cir. 2002) (deliberate misrepresentation on IFP supports dismissal)
- Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2016) (dismissal appropriate for deliberate failure to disclose outside trust funds)
- Mathis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 1998) (knowing provision of inaccurate information warrants sanction)
- Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438 (5th Cir. 2016) (initial IFP misrepresentations justify dismissal)
- Romesburg v. Trickey, 908 F.2d 258 (8th Cir. 1990) (intentional misrepresentation in affidavit supports dismissal)
- Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 1998) (prisoner must monitor and preserve funds when prison fails to remit; depletion affects fee liability)
- Sultan v. Fenoglio, 775 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2015) (court may deny IFP if prisoner intentionally depletes trust account to avoid fees)
- Metrou v. M.A. Mortenson Co., 781 F.3d 357 (7th Cir. 2015) (good-faith omission in analogous contexts may be remedied without dismissal)
Decision: The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court, holding that Robertson’s IFP affidavit was not rendered "untrue" by his failure to list a not-yet-received settlement and that funds deposited into the prison trust fund suffice as disclosure for §1915(b) enforcement.