Kenneth E. Murray v. Francis E. Dosal, Clerk

814 Emgе’s signature Mr. on the accordingly, handwritten though even it was underpaying authenticated,

note was never it actually should not him if he had op- chosen the other have been usable as tion. Although evidence. the handwritten note could forged, have been who would have so? done arguments These indicate a funda fund, Someone at the to save 21 months of misunderstanding pension mental and ben payments to Mr. Karr? highly That seems litigatiоn pension efits A under ERISA. or Emge? Mrs. only reason for unlikely.; welfare fund trustee or administrator is anot Emge Mr. to have elected the 60-month court. It is not bound the rules of evi option would have been his wife’s desire to dence. Pierre v. Connecticut General Life something for her brother. There is no (5th Co., 1552, Cir.1991); Ins. 932 F.2d 1562 suggestion falling of a out between her and 1175, 1177 F.Supp. Helton v. ACS 964 Group, her pension brother after the application was (E.D.Tenn.1997); n. 2 v. Lawrenсe Wester note, filled out. If she did write the it’s haus, 275, F.Supp. (E.D.Mo.1985); 606 278 probably she pension because wanted the if Johnson, Comment, Jamie L. “Judicial Re predeceased her husband her and wanted to view of ERISA Plan Administration under dispel any ambiguity resulting from the con- Arbitrary Capricious Standard of fusing way in which he completed had Review,” 400, (1988). 10 Indus. Rel. L.J. application form. And if as in this case the creating instrument argument Karr’s that because ERISA for gives the trust thе trustee broad discretion in pension bids a pay fund to benefits other trust, acting on claims on the a court in a than in plan documents, accordance with the lawsuit challenging the exercise of that dis 1104(a)(1)(D); U.S.C. Cummings v. cretion will consider not whether the trustee Briggs Plan, & Stratton Retirement 797 F.2d made a only mistake but whether he was (7th 383, Cir.1986), it pay was unlawful to unreasonable. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Emge Mr. in accordance with his handwrit Bruch, 101, 115, 948, v. note, which, ten nоte, even if it was his was 80(1989); L.Ed.2d Mers v. Marriott Int’l pension not a plan part plan, such a Group Accidental & Death Dismemberment borders on the question fantastic. The Plan, (7th 510, Cir.1998); 137 F.3d Gallo plan, survivorship month, or the 60 918, (7th v. Corp., Amoco 102 F.3d 921-22 Emge in; was enrolled the fund merely used Cir.1996). If the trustee had a conflict of that question. help the note to answer interest, his Affirmed. actions bewill scrutinized more carefully, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v.

Bruch, 115, supra, 948; at U.S. Co.,

Donato v. Metropolitan Ins. Life 375, (7th Cir.1994); 380 n. 3 Buttrаm v. States, Central Southeast & Southwest Areas Fund, Health & Welfare (8th Cir.1996), but suggestion there is no MURRAY, Kenneth Appellant, E. that here. The fund’s only decision was not rea DOSAL, Appellee. Francis E. Clerk sonable, but sensible. The page second No. 97-2828. pension application form, page United Appeals, States Court of option, the 60-month is rather confusing, and Eighth Circuit. in signing putting it and down ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‍Karr’s name beneficiary Emge may Mr. have thought Submitted March 1998. -that adding he was contingent him as а bene July Decided ficiary, not realizing, that the survivorship Rehearing Suggestion for Rehearing plan does not allow for such a beneficiary; En Banc Denied Oct. 1998.* only a surviving spouse beneficiary can be a plan. any under that In event he did not

complain when the fund told him that he had

chosen survivorship plan, paid him

* Judge Judge Kelly McMillian and grant suggestion. would

816 Smith, Paul, MN, argued,

L. Marshall St. appellant. Lobell, Justice, Department Anne M. (Barbara DC, Washington, argued L. Her- Justice, DC, wig, Department of Washington, brief), appelleе. on the HEANEY, BEAM Before Circuit WATERS,1 Judges, Judge. District PER CURIAM. Murray petition

Kenneth filed this under Act, § All alleg- the Writs 28 U.S.C.A. ing the clerk of court violated his constitu- rights by tional refusing rights to file a civil complaint paid partial unless he an initial filing pursuant fee to the of the Litigation Prison Reform Act of 1995 (West (PLRA), § Supp. U.S.C.A. 1998). Dosal, Appellee, Francis was directed respond petition. to the After the re- filed, sponse was adopted the district court2 report magistrate оf judge3 and dis- petition. appeal missed the This followed. We affirm.

The PLRA was principal enacted “with the purpose deterring prisoner litiga- by instituting tion prison- economic costs for wishing Lyon ers to file civil claims.” v. Krol, (8th Cir.1997) (citing 104-378, Rep. H.R. Conf. No. at 166-67 (1995)). proce- The PLRA “refashioned the dures seeking must observe when proceed pauperis] IFP forma [in in civil Farcass, actions.” Mitchell v. (11th Cir.1997).

The PLRA’s amendments to 28 § require prisoners U.S.C.A. who wish requiremеnts IFP to meet certain imposed by prisoner seeking the statute.4 A Waters, 1. The Honorable H. Franklin United prisoner includes a statement of all assets such Judge and, States District possesses, for the Western District “seeking bring a civil ac Arkansas, sitting designation. tion,” here, (2) copy prison as a certified er's trust fund account statement. Rule 3 of the Doty, 2. The Honorable David S. United States provides Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Judge District for the District of Minnesota. by filing "[a] action is commenced a com plaint Accordingly, with the court.” Boylan, The Honorable Arthur J. United States clearly prevent would seem Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. pauperis an action in forma until he has (a) complied requirements 4. Before the with the of subsection district court can authorize the § any prisoner's practice, commencement of 1915. This is now the as we un suit in forma 1915(a) it, pauperis, § 28 U.S.C. that the derstand in all district courts in this circuit. (1) Clarke, however, poverty submit opinion an affidavit of Our recent in Garrett v. Cir.1997). that its fee “They have concluded showing his an affidavit file status must IFP suspect employ classifi- do not impoverishment, requirements his attesting to assets cations, prisoners of deprive his account certified copy submit a access, pro- period preceding equal or violаte six-month court statement (citations appeal. complaint or notice at 764-65 Lyon, filing of tection.” (2). 1915(a)(1) though omitted). Even & 28 U.S.C.A. status, required prisoner is seeking IFP re fee Murray first contends The court of the fee. full pay amount (cid:127) an constitute unconstitutional quirements exist, collects funds assesses ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‍when He relies to the courts. to access barrier required by of the court fees payment partial Casey, on Lewis primаrily 20% of law, filing fee of partial initial an (1996), 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (a) monthly deposits average of: the greater na reaffirmed the fundamental contends he (b) account; average or the prisoner’s to the access to the prisoner’s right of of a ture for prisoner’s account in the monthly balance is a argues right the involved He courts.5 immediately preceding period the 6-month must em right this court and fundamental appeal. of cоmplaint or notice filing the of the reviewing restric scrutiny in the strict ploy 1915(b)(1). However, the stat- § 28 U.S.C.A. by PLRA. right the placed on this tions pris- a no event shall provides “[i]n that ute ac- bringing a civil prohibited oner be ac long regulated the “Congress has judgment civil or criminal a appealing tion or judi the indigent litigants to federal of cess no assets prisoner has the the reason that Roller, The 107 F.3d 230. system.” at cial pay the initial by which to means and nо fee, if neces filing over time imposition of a 1915(b)(4). § 28 U.S.C.A. filing partial fee.” unconstitutionally held not to sary, has been fee, pris- filing the the initial paying After e.g., In access. See right the to court burden monthly payments equal to must oner make (8th Williamson, 1336, F.2d 1339-41 786 re credit- month’s income preceding the 20% of imposition partial of the Cir.1986)(Upholding account. 28 U.S.C.A. prison his to ed As the Fourth plaintiffs). filing fees on IFP 1915(b)(2). prisoner’s ac- long as the § So Roller, right of аccess in “the noted Circuit $10, given prison officials count exceeds free-floating right, is not a federal courts to percent. the 20 These authority to take III Congress’ Article subject to rather is but court. of the to the clerk payments are sent jurisdiction.” on federal to set limits power ac- the payments are deducted from Roller, Supreme at 231. “The 107 F.3d paid. full fee has been until the counts ‘unlimited recognized an has nеver Court enactment, circuits a its number Since in all indigent at all times that an rule variety against PLRA a upheld have the the relief without has eases e.g., challenges. See Shabazz ” constitutional (quoting United Id. of fees.’ payment (10th Cir.1997); Parsons, 1246 F.3d v. 127 631, Kras, 34 93 v. States (5th Dimazana, 286 Cir. 122 F.3d v. Norton (1973)). 626 L.Ed.2d Farcass, 1483 1997); F.3d v. 112 Mitchell case, failed to Murray has in Further this Gunn, (11th Cir.1997); 227 107 F.3d Roller — impeded. has court access been —, that denied, (4th Cir.1997), show U.S. cert. (Prisoner lacks stand- 765 (1997); Lyon, 127 F.3d at 130 192, 139 L.Ed.2d (6th requirements to shоw fee he fails Hobbs, ing when Hampton v. Therefore, although we in the decision Garrett. position, holding contrary a takes above, § complaint say, prefer and then file the would a allows 1915(a) provide a requirements within satisfy “prisoners who IFP wish (8th Cir. necessary reasonable time. for the calculation the information 1998). inter that this is an incorrect We believe filing a partial fee before assessment of contrary to the pretation and is statute lawsuit,” our precludes note that Garrett we Congress by the enact policies established doing so. Litigation Act of the Prison Reform ment of view, needlessly such a rule will 1995. In our dissenting heavily Murray on the also relies and dock improperly numerous create case Lyon. Heaney Judge in opinion of problems district courts management et Nevertheless, by bound we are circuit. in this by deprived the PLRA havе him of imposed brought over 25% of the civil court). Rather, courts.”). Murray to the his access in cases filed district federal merely argues he should not be forced to similarly Prisoners are not situated spending the choose between limited funds non-prisoners. They have their basic costs prison his account on small amenities or on living paid by government. “They pursuing a civil action. often have free time on their hands that partial that both the initial fee Given result, litigants possess. other not As a modest, subsequent installment amounts are the federal courts have prison observed that payments only are extracted in the litigation something er has assumed prisoner’s months when trust fund ac- Roller, activity.’” nature of a ‘recreational dollars, ten count exceeds and the fact that (citations omitted). at F.3d See also provides pro- PLRA no shall be Mitchell, (“Moreover, at pris bringing an hibited from action “for the rea- unique oners have incentives to file meritless prisoner has son that the no assets and no lawsuits, e.g., attempt to ob pay partial means the initial tain a ‘short sabbatical in the nearest federal filing fee,” agree provisions pass we that the courthouse,’ or to harass officials or persuasive constitutional muster. We find (citations omitted)). correctional officers.” reasoning of the Fourth that: Circuit requirements provide The fee economic in- [Requiring prisoners to make economic de- require prisoners “stop centives that to and filing deny cisions about lawsuits does not Mitchell, think” filing before suit. 112 F.3d courts; merely places it access to the the Norton, at 1488. See also 122 F.3d at 291 indigent prisoner position in a similar to (“The provisions PLRA, sense, fee of the in a faced,by that thоse whose basic costs of playing level the field between incarcerated by living paid are not the state. Those i.f.p. litigants litigants and other in the feder- .living prisons outside cannot file a law- courts.”). al provisions We find the fee every they imag- suit time suffer a real or prisoner’s do not violate a right to Instead, slight. they weigh ined must the equal protection. importance resorting of redress before Murray’s final contentiоn is that the fee legál system.

the If a determines provisions assessment violate his to due spent that his funds are better on other process prison since given authorities are suit, filing rights items rather than a civil authority uncontrolled to take 20% of the implied “he has an demonstrated evalua- prisoner’s account prisoner being without the tion of that that suit” the courts be should given heard, opportunity notice an and to be entitled tо honor. or without an evaluation regarding made the Roller, (citation omitted). 107 F.3d at 233 prisoner’s ability pay. Murray relies on Murray requir next contends that Eldridge, Mathews v. 96 S.Ct. ing only prisoners pay filing fees violates (1976) 47 L.Ed.2d 18 and Mahers v. equal protection their of ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‍the laws. (8th Halford, Cir.1996), 76 F.3d 951 cert. prisoners Neither indigents nor constitute a — denied, —, U.S. 117 S.Ct. suspect above, class as discussed the (1997). vein, L.Ed.2d 618 In this same he implicate not a fundamental argues also the PLRA аmendments Roller, right. 234; Hampton, at F.3d § constitutionally 1915 are infirm because Thus, at F.3d 1286. the PLRA’s fee procedures provided there are no for deter requirements upheld long they are so as are mining propriety the of the fee assessment rationally legitimate government related to a before the funds are withdrawn. Clearly, interest. Congress legitimate had a making Mahers, interest in governing rules the feder In recognized we pris that systеm al court and a rational basis to be property oners have a in money interest requirements lieve the fee Mahers, would serve to received from outside sources. prisoner tort, curtail rights, abusive ease, and F.3d at 954. In this the record is Mitchell, litigation. conditions at devoid of regarding origin information the Roller, (“In 1488. See also 107 F.3d at 230 in Murray’s the funds account. Neverthe- of his financial apprize the court prisoner to thаt proposition the less, with will start we showing his as- in affidavit by filing an interest status protected a have “[p]risoners do impoverishment at 1287. and attesting to his Hampton, money.” sets their process to due his Thus, copy of account entitled a certified providing (2). 1915(a)(1) funds. of these deprived § they can be U.S.C.A. & before statement. prison not officials court and the It is the process is due is what question The 1915(b)(1). Id., § filing fee. the assess that can be account prisoner’s a money in before Further, percentage the PLRA sets forth the us filing fee. Mathews applied a that prisoner’s account money in the the (1) private factors: consider three filing payment of the may be taken by official affected will be interest (b)(2). 1915(b)(1) Id., The § & fee. (2) depriva action; of an erroneous the risk custody of officials, having agency or other procedures through the interest tion оf such perform the administra- merely prisoner, value, any, if of addi used, probable and the deducting the fee from function of tive safeguards; procedural tional substitute forwarding that fee Mathews, prisoners’ accounts (3) interest. government’s time the amount court “each to the clerk of at U.S. until exceeds $10 in the account as proposition, start with We Id., 1915(b)(2). paid.” fees are incarceration, Mahers, while it in we did protection sys- of the deprive prisoners in the fee not interest government’s does Constitution, in does result tem, prisoner filings federal to reduce being placed on limitations other weigh, restrictions requiring the Mahers, rights. prisoner’s constitutional must; cost the economic litigants omitted). (citations Although at 954 “This suit, above. detail was discussed funds, he is in his an interest prisoner has satisfactory pro- interest, combined [his] control complete over to “not entitled right private the provided and weak cedures courts, Thus, prison.” Id. money in while case, the compel that the conclusion this in pro court, approved debit have including this right to prisoner’s a not violate does Act Mahers, Mah- F.3d at 954-56. cedures. Hampton, 106 process.” procedural due inmate’s account an from ers debits involved at 1288. F.3d noted There obligations. we for restitution above, we affirm discussed For the reasons absolutely deprived not that “inmates decision. court’s the district part it is money when of their the benefit Id. debts.” their restitution applied toward Judge, WATERS, District

at 954-55. Senior concurring. applies even with statement This prisoner Here the this case. more force to on cased filed the agree I Garrett that a civil voluntary file the decision

made from 1998, panel 26, this precludes June pay the being used to funds are lawsuit. The applying and amendments reading the PLRA Hampton As the requirements. filing fee written, they are we as believe them noted, court thus, opinion. in this I concur pris- for being utilized the funds are [t]he em- separate concurrence I write this ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‍mon- non-indigent’s just as a oner’s benefit 4, above, footnote agreement with phasize my federal him in by ey is used the about effect my concern express and charges a Furthermore, thе Act court. on likely to holding have the Garrett that anyone who is else no more than prisoner al- PLRA has that the affect beneficial the much pay&emdash;and under adjudged able large- by prisoners ready on had the Thus, the terms. generous payment more ly frivolous lawsuits. weigh in not private prisoner’s interests procedures. requiring additional favor of in the Western judge a trial I have been years. at 1287. Hampton, almost for of Arkansas District taught has experience During period, that of an errone- very risk is also little There have trial courts that, years, over the me The PLRA deprivation. ous (8th Cir.1997), increasingly by burdened become 129 F.3d 481 I suggest that it lawsuits, many, by all, by but no means effective, filed appropriate would be and and still prisoners petty gripes thing about one provide protection prisoner’s rights, for the another, purported or such as constitutiоnal stamp trial courts to be directed to non- they that were claims furnished with the conforming papers prisoner tendered a wrong soap, and the like. Each of these “received”, most, all, if not district courts cases, frivolous, irrespective require of how in the circuit now do. The clerk could be time, detracting court substantial notify prisoner directed to then delaying legitimate important litigation requirements, deficiencies and PLRA the court. before give prisoner days comply. If time, compliance during there was not The Western District of Arkansas encom- papers would not be filed and no lawsuit passes largely major rural area with no papers commenced. The could then be re- areas, urban and no facilities other prisoner. turned to the county municipal jails, yet, than PLRA, year prior prisoner to the we had HEANEY, Judge, dissenting. Circuit filed, or cases 41% of our civil docket. At times, prisoner filings approached 60% of I respectfully Regardless dissent. filings. year our civil For the after the whether we review this case under a strict district, PLRA prisoner was instituted scrutiny standard, or rational basis my it is 217, dropped eases of. our 20% civil belief that these PLRA are uncon- docket, a in filings 44% decrease disputes stitutional. No one that access to cases. is a fundamental courts and that “ figures for our sister district to the reasonably must have ‘a adequate east, Arkansas, the Eastern District of opportunity present claimed violations of all of the has institutions in the Arkansas fundamental constitutional to the ” prison system, also dramatically shows that Casey, Lewis v. courts.’ 518 U.S. accomplished congress has what 2174, 2180, (1996) 135 L.Ed.2d 606 period intended. For the 12 month prior to Smith, (quoting Bounds v. PLRA, that district had 955 (1977)). Yet, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 filed, comprising casеs 41% of its docket. majority effectively today holds For the months after the statute became court access for some is more fundamental effective, 869(33%) filings dropped than court access for others. period July from 97 to June parade The of horribles is not hard to filings, there were 733 constituting only 31% imagine are now faced with filings. of the civil impossible choosing, choices: example, that, I “jailhouse am fearful after the law- spending money between bring a lawsuit yers” and filers” learn about “recreational being after brutalized or sending money Garrett, right we will be back where we child; home to a making co-payments for nearly they started or so. When learn that suing needed medical care or protect one’s they don’t have to submit with their com- rights. problems with these plaint required affidavit and statement of endless; are in upholding but the constitu- account, most, all, if not will be filed without tionally provisions, of these majority, likely them. This will many prison- result in courts, many well as other circuit have deter- being er lawsuits filed where will there never prisoners, mined that non-prisoners, like n n be compliance, requiring procedures to be must make economic choices before instituted clerk’s offices and district my judgment, lawsuits. In argument this is courts, spent, and time keep the dockеt non-prisoners flawed because do not have to cleared of these going matters that aren’t make Non-prisoners such stark choices. who anywhere. cannot may proceed afford fees IFP. If this court going prescribe proce- prisoners, possess While who also a funda- , dures, guidelines access, or rules for right district courts mental to court do not have the Norris, to follow as it did in Henderson v. same IFP. minor- protect obligation have an

Courts America, Appellee, is violated of when the Constitution STATES ity interests UNITED deeply troubled I will. am by majoritarian trampled in constitutional when ROMERO, Appellant. Andres prison- expediency, and political the name of No. 97-2983. political target. easy certainly an ers are today’s me about particularly concerns What Appeals, Court of United States little, any, if effect it will have is that decision Eighth Circuit. It litigation. curbing frivolous in terms of 12, 1998. March Submitted however, important claims may, prevent July Decided no mean- court for pursued in federal being ingful reason: Rehearing Rehearing Suggestion for 1, 1998. En Banc Denied Oct. of suits that the number

Although it is true increased, there by prisoners ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‍has brought sig- the increase has

is no indication in the out-paced the increase

nificantly in this incarcerated people

number the in- reasons for

country nor have the A established.... in claims been

crease in the any increase of reasons for

list simple in- complaints over a

number prisoners would number of

crease prison

likely high incidence include carefully trained lack of

overcrowding, a officers, inadequate and

correctional proce- grievance unfair internal

frequently

dures. Krol, n. 6 766 &

Lyon v. J., dissenting).

(Heaney, degree of civili- analysis, “the

In the final by entering its society

zation in a is revealed Dostoyevsky, The House prisons.” F. 1957). (C. trans., Problems

Dead 76 Garnett prisons are well document- American

within further entrance and Rather than allow

ed. life, however, today’s

examination impor- prevent potential

decision has adjudicated simply being

tant claims from status. It prisoner’s economic

because of a reason, for the reasons stated for this

above, respectfully that I dissent.

Case Details

Case Name: Kenneth E. Murray v. Francis E. Dosal, Clerk

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Oct 8, 1998

Citation: 150 F.3d 814

Docket Number: 97-2828

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.