Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Steve Olivares v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden, J. Hixon and D. Helsel, James F. Stehouwer v. Michael Hennessey, Sheriff Sergeant Nelson Deputy Gee Deputy Antram Deputy Williams and Internal Affairs
Citations: 59 F.3d 109; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4860; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15706Docket: 94-15518
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 26, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Steve Olivares and James Stehouwer, plaintiffs-appellants, filed pro se civil rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and sought to proceed in forma pauperis, which allows waiver of filing fees for those unable to pay. The district court determined that while both plaintiffs could not pay the full fee, they could afford partial payments and ordered them to pay accordingly. Upon their failure to pay the set partial fees, the court dismissed their complaints without prejudice. On appeal, the primary issue raised by the plaintiffs is whether 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 allows district courts to impose partial filing fees. The court affirmed that it does have this authority, citing previous case law, specifically referencing the precedent set in Alexander v. Carson Adult High School, which established that such fee determinations are subject to abuse of discretion review. The court noted that imposing partial fees aligns with the goals of the in forma pauperis statute by facilitating access to the courts while also managing judicial costs and filtering out frivolous claims. The court pointed out that other circuits have consistently upheld the imposition of partial filing fees, reinforcing the legitimacy of this practice under the statute. Following this determination, the court proceeded to examine the specific appropriateness of the partial fees imposed in the cases of Olivares and Stehouwer. Stehouwer, a prisoner, qualified to proceed in forma pauperis based on his financial situation, which included a monthly income of $14.61 and a prison trust fund balance of $14.61. He also received $110 from family in the six months prior to his complaint. The district court required a $20 filing fee, payable in two installments, leaving him with only $4.61 for commissary expenses after each payment. Upon his parole, Stehouwer reported being unemployed and dependent on relatives, raising concerns about the fee's burden. Citing precedents from other circuits, the court vacated the dismissal of his case and remanded it for the district court to reassess his financial status. In contrast, Olivares was subject to a $30 filing fee, which the court found reasonable given his $310 family support during the preceding six months and his ability to withdraw $35 monthly from his trust fund for non-essential items. The district court appropriately considered Olivares's spending choices when determining the fee, indicating he valued comfort purchases over pursuing his lawsuit. The court clarified that a complete waiver of fees does not require the plaintiff to be entirely destitute. It upheld the district court's discretion in both cases regarding fee amounts. Lastly, it ruled that dismissal for nonpayment of a filing fee does not require a finding of frivolousness, meaning these are alternative grounds for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The decision affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings, allowing Stehouwer to recover costs on appeal.