CHRISTOPHER SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. PETER GOVORCHIN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-2458
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Submitted: July 18, 2006; Decided and Filed: September 18, 2006
Before: GILMAN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; WISEMAN, Senior District Judge.*
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 06a0360p.06. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 04-73816—Nancy G. Edmunds, District Judge.
ON BRIEF: Christopher Skinner, Adrian, Michigan, pro se.
OPINION
SUTTON, Circuit Judge. While incarcerated at the Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan, Christopher Skinner filed a complaint against four state employees—Peter Govorchin, Hugh Wolfenbarger, Linda Wittman and Doug Ford—alleging that they had wrongfully garnished appeals costs charged against him from his prison account. The district court summarily dismissed the complaint, and Skinner, proceeding pro se, appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
In 2001, Skinner filed a
On March 5, 2004, our court issued the mandate in Skinner v. Jones and awarded $1,619.25 in costs to the State. On March 8, 2004, Govorchin wrote a letter to Wittman, a litigation manager for the Michigan Department of Corrections, asking her to process the March 5 mandate. On March 25, 2004, Wittman asked Ford, an administrative officer at the Macomb prison, to collect the costs award from Skinner‘s prison trust account. And on April 8, 2004, Ford began withdrawing funds from Skinner‘s account, taking all but $10 from that account each month. After complaining about the removal of these funds from his account and after failing to obtain relief from Wolfenbarger (the prison warden) through the prison grievance process, Skinner filed this
II.
Contrary to Skinner‘s claim against all four defendants, the award as an initial matter complied with
(1) A party who wants costs taxed must—within 14 days after entry of judgment—file with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and verified bill of costs.
(2) Objections must be filed within 10 days after service of the bill of costs, unless the court extends the time.
(3) The clerk must prepare and certify an itemized statement of costs for insertion in the mandate, but issuance of the mandate must not be delayed for taxing costs. If the mandate issues before costs are finally determined, the district clerk must—upon the circuit clerk‘s request—add the statement of costs, or any amendment of it, to the mandate.
Under the rule, the State as a prevailing appellee had a right to request costs. And the court‘s award of costs conformed in each particular with
Even if the court‘s award of costs did not violate
(f) (1) Judgment may be rendered for costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other proceedings . . . .
(2) (A) If the judgment against a prisoner includes the payment of costs under this subsection, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of the costs ordered.
(B) The prisoner shall be required to make payments for costs under this subsection in the same manner as is provided for filing fees under subsection [(b)(2)].
(C) In no event shall the costs collected exceed the amount of the costs ordered by the court.
At first blush, it is difficult to see how this award of costs violated the PLRA. A review of the prior case shows that it involved a “judgment against a prisoner [that] include[d] the payment of costs,” and the judgment “rendered for costs” came “at the conclusion of the suit.”
Skinner maintains, however, that this award violates the PLRA because: (1)
We are not prepared to follow Skinner, accompanied by Feliciano, down this road. First, while
Second, once one accounts for the “as in other proceedings” phrase, the language upon which Skinner relies—“If the judgment against a prisoner includes the payment of costs under this subsection, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of the costs ordered“—presents a weak foundation for altering the traditional
Third, Skinner‘s proposed interpretation makes little sense. It would force courts to decide whether to impose costs at the time they reject the losing party‘s claims on the merits rather than waiting, as
Nor is it apparent who would benefit from this rule. As shown, it would not necessarily benefit indigent prisoners in the long run, even if it would give Skinner a break here. And States, to our knowledge, do not reflexively seeks costs against inmate litigants, perhaps because they are frequently indigent or perhaps because the state resources needed to collect such awards frequently exceed the value of the awards. (Consider the $54 award in Feliciano.) At any rate, States, like all litigants, know how to seek costs when they want them.
Skinner‘s proposed rule also fails to benefit the courts. We can think of no benefit to courts (and clerks’ offices) from being asked to vary the normal process for awarding costs under
Fourth, while the brief analysis in Feliciano suggests that the Second Circuit might have taken a different route here, the court did not have occasion to consider the impact of its decision on
Under these circumstances, Skinner‘s challenge to the award of costs must fail. When the State sought costs in this case, Skinner failed to object to the request within 10 days, as
III.
Although Skinner‘s challenge to the court‘s award of costs misses the mark, his challenge to the State‘s collection of those costs does not. With the passage of the PLRA, Congress created special payment procedures that apply to prisoners who appeal in forma pauperis. Under those payment procedures, which apparently were mislabeled, see In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138 (6th Cir. 1997) (“Section 1915(f)(2)(B) mistakenly refers to § 1915(a)(2) as the authoritative subsection for the payment process. . . . The payment process is located in § 1915(b)(2).“), the State may collect costs awards in the same manner as it collects filing fees. The filing-fee provision says:
After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month‘s income credited to the prisoner‘s account. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner‘s account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.
With respect to collecting costs, as with collecting filing fees, then, the State may collect the award in monthly increments—by withdrawing 20% of the inmate‘s “preceding month‘s income credited” to his prisoner account until the full award has been paid so long as $10 remains in the account each month. The State in this instance, however, removed money from Skinner‘s trust account at the monthly rate of 100%. This the statute does not allow.
Nor, contrary to the State‘s suggestion, does Skinner‘s requested injunction asking the defendants prospectively to terminate this illegal practice violate the Tenth or Eleventh Amendments. See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908); Supreme Ct. of Va. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 736 (1980); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 108 n. 9 (1975). We thus remand the case to the district court to enter an injunction ordering defendants to conduct any further garnishment of Skinner‘s prison account, at least for purposes of paying this costs award, at the 20% rate per month contemplated by
IV.
Contending that Govorchin (the assistant attorney general) was responsible for the improper garnishment of some of the money taken from his prison trust account, Skinner seeks monetary relief against him in his official and individual capacities under
That Skinner seeks money damages in the form of a reimbursement of funds paid does not change things. In Ford Motor Company v. Indiana Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459 (1945), overruled on other grounds by Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613, 614 (2002), a taxpayer who had paid taxes to Indiana under protest sought a refund of those taxes from the state officials who had collected them. Even though the taxpayer “at one time had the money, and paid it over to the State pursuant to an allegedly unconstitutional tax exaction,” Edelman, 415 U.S. at 669, the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred an action in federal court for reimbursement by the State unless the State had consented to such a suit. Ford Motor Co., 323 U.S. at 464; see also Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 278 (1986) (noting that relief should not be granted if “the relief is tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of federal law, even though styled as something else“).
As to Skinner‘s individual-capacity claim, sovereign immunity does not bar the suit, but prosecutorial immunity does. “Where relief is sought under general law from wrongful acts of state officials, the sovereign‘s immunity . . . does not extend to wrongful individual action, and the citizen is allowed a remedy against the wrongdoer personally.” Ford Motor Co., 323 U.S. at 462. Even though the State‘s sovereign immunity does not preclude suits against state officials in their individual capacities for damages under
A prosecutor is duty bound to exercise his best judgment both in deciding which suits to bring and in conducting them in court. The public trust of the prosecutor‘s office would suffer if he were constrained in making every decision by the consequences in terms of his own potential liability in a suit for damages. Such suits could be expected with some frequency, for a defendant often will transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and malicious actions to the State‘s advocate.
Id. at 424-25. Since Imbler, courts have extended the immunity beyond “initiating a prosecution and . . . presenting the State‘s case,” id. at 431, to cover any activities undertaken “in connection with [one‘s] duties in functioning as a prosecutor,” Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 877 (6th Cir. 2002). The immunity also extends beyond the criminal process to conduct in civil proceedings where a government attorney is operating in an enforcement role in “initiating . . . judicial proceedings,” Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d 937, 947 (6th Cir. 2000), or “undertak[ing] the defense of a civil suit,” Al-Bari v. Winn, No. 89-5150, 1990 WL 94229, at *1 (6th Cir. July 9, 1990).
“The analytical key to prosecutorial immunity,” we have explained, “is advocacy—whether the actions in question are those of an advocate.” Spurlock v. Thompson, 330 F.3d 791, 798 (6th Cir. 2003), reh‘g denied (2004) (emphasis omitted). If the challenged actions of the prosecutor were not performed in his role as advocate, if they “do not relate to an advocate‘s preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings,” then only “[q]ualified immunity” applies. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993).
In this instance, the district court correctly found that the challenged actions by Govorchin were all “intimately associated with the judicial phase” of the case and accordingly were entitled to absolute immunity. Govorchin‘s efforts to recover costs in Skinner v. Jones represented a paradigmatic act of advocacy on behalf of the State, as the pursuit of costs at the conclusion of litigation is a function ordinarily performed by an attorney acting on behalf of a client and thus is an integral part of the litigation itself.
V.
Skinner also challenges the district court‘s dismissal of his claims against Wolfenbarger. In his complaint, Skinner contended that Wolfenbarger (1) failed to respond appropriately to Skinner‘s grievance appeal and (2) failed to exercise appropriate supervisory control over the other prison employee defendants, Wittman and Ford. The district court properly dismissed both claims as a matter of law.
Skinner‘s complaint regarding Wolfenbarger‘s denial of Skinner‘s grievance appeal, it is clear, fails to state a claim. See Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999) (reversing denial of summary judgment to prison officials whose only involvement was the denial of administrative remedies); Martin v. Harvey, 14 F. App‘x 307, 309 (6th Cir. June 7, 2001) (affirming dismissal of the claims against a defendant whose only involvement in the matters giving rise to the
VI.
For these reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.