Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________
No. 97-10888
____________
KIRK DOUGLAS THOMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RONALD DREWRY, Warden; TIM MORGAN, Warden;
KELVIN SCOTT, Warden; CRAIG RAINES, Warden; B
PREWIT, Unit Health Administrator; HERMAN
SHAFFER, Doctor; JEAN HUBE LOUIS, Doctor; JOE
HOE BLOE, Doctor; BOUNDS, Nurse; JOYCE ROSS;
CO III; EDWIN GONZALEZ, CO III; MICHAEL
EULENFELD,
Lieutenant;
LARRY
ANDERSON,
Lieutenant; NOBLES, Doctor; DAVIS, Doctor;
DAVID W TEMPLETON, CO III; DARRELL PORTER,
Lieutenant; ERIC HAMILTON, Lieutenant; ROBERT
RIVAS, JR, Sergeant; JAMES MCGONAGILL, CO III;
THOMAS SULLIVAN, Sergeant; LONA CHEAIRS,
Mailroom Supervisor; JOYCE BYARS, Doctor,
Psychiatrist; CHRISTOPHER OWENS, CO III;
KENNETH WARREN, Sergeant; EISENHOWER LEWIS, CO
III; ROBERT TALASEK, CO III; CARRY HILLIARD,
Sergeant; SHAWN HARRIS, CO III; HAROLD
ROBINSON, CO III; RONALD WILLIAMS, Lieutenant;
EDDIE WHEELER, Major; JAIME QUINTANILLA,
Captain; BRIAN CARSEN, Captain; WILLIAM KELLY,
Captain; LAMAR EARNEST, Captain; THOMAS JONES,
Lieutenant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
April 10, 1998
Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:

Kirk Douglas Thompson, a Texas inmate, filed a civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against more than 30 officials at his
prison. Thompson moved to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"),
attesting that he had no income or assets. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(2), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
("PLRA"), the district court ordered Thompson to pay an initial
partial filing fee of $1.80. Thompson did not pay this partial
filing fee. In a second order, the district court determined that
Thompson "ha[d] shown good cause for failing" to pay the partial
filing fee and stated that it would require Thompson to pay the
full filing fee in monthly installments. The court directed the
"agency having custody of [Thompson]" to forward to the court the
$1.80 initial partial filing fee "when funds exist in [Thompson's]
inmate trust account."1 Thompson's timely appeal followed.
On appeal, we directed the parties to address the following
issue: "Whether the order from which the appeal is taken,
requiring the payment of the full filing fee and an initial partial
filing fee, is appealable prior to the entry of a final judgment in
this civil rights case." This is a question of first impression in
our Court. Prior to the enactment of the PLRA, an order denying a
motion to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 was an appealable
1
The PLRA authorizes the district court to "assess and,
when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any court fees
required by law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the
greater of-- A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's
account; or (B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's
account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of
the complaint or notice of appeal." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
-2-

final order. See Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242,
1244 (5th Cir. 1975). The district court's order in the present
case, however, is not appealable as a final judgment because it did
not end the litigation on the merits and will not "close the door
of the courthouse to the true pauper, forcing him to forfeit his
day in court." Id. The district court noted that no prisoner,
regardless of his poverty, will be barred from pursuing a civil
action. The PLRA explicitly states that "[i]n no event shall a
prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a
civil or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no
assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing
fee." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).
Moreover, the district court's order does not fall within the
statutory list of interlocutory orders that are appealable. See 28
U.S.C. § 1292(a). Similarly, the court's order does not fall
within the collateral-order doctrine, the jurisprudential exception
to the final-order rule. The collateral-order doctrine allows
appellate review of nonfinal orders if certain conditions are met:
1) the order must finally dispose of a matter so that the
district court's decision may not be characterizable as
tentative, informal or incomplete; 2) the question
presented must be serious and unsettled; 3) the order
must be separable from, and collateral to, rights
asserted in the principal suit; and 4) there should
generally be a risk of important and probably irreparable
loss if an immediate appeal is not heard.
EEOC v. Kerrville Bus Co., 925 F.2d 129, 134 (5th Cir. 1991).
Here, under the PLRA, Thompson cannot be barred from bringing
suit because of his poverty; consequently, there is no "risk of
important and [] irreparable loss." Thus, we hold that the
-3-

district court's order directing that Thompson's funds be forwarded
to pay the initial partial filing fee only when he has sufficient
funds available is not an appealable collateral order.
Accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. In
addition, Thompson's motion to prosecute without delay is DENIED.
-4-