IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether section 1915(b)(2) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners who file multiple actions in forma pauperis to pay a monthly installment on a “per-prisoner” basis, where prisoners owe no more than 20% of their preceding month’s income regardless of the number of cases for which they owe filing fee; or on a “ per-case ” basis, where a prisoner must pay 20% of her preceding month’s income for each case for which she owes a filing fee. See Brief for Petitioner, Antoine Bruce at 1–2. Federal prisoner Antoine Bruce argues that the monthly payments should be calculated on a per-prisoner basis, while Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Charles E. Samuels, Jr. argues that the payments should be calculated on a per-case basis. See id. at 16; Brief for Respondents, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., et al. at 13. The parties diverge sharply in their interpretations of the text of the statute, congressional intent, the statute’s purposes, and the constitutional-avoidance canon. See Brief for Petitioner at 16, 22, 32, 42, 49; Brief for Respondents at 13, 42, 46. The Court’s ruling will resolve a circuit split between the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits, which apply a per-prisoner cap, and the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, which apply a per-case cap. Additionally, the case will impact prisoners’ access to the courts and administrative costs associated with prisoner cases. See Brief for Petitioner at 11.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether, under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“§ 1915”), a district court’s dismissal of a suit counts as a strike while it is still pending on appeal or before the time for seeking appellate review has passed. Andre Lee Coleman, a prisoner in Michigan, was barred under § 1915 from proceeding on a fourth action in forma pauperis while the decision from a previous action was on appeal in district court. Coleman argues that the district court improperly dismissed his action when it counted the pending appeal of his action as a third strike in accordance with § 1915(g). However, Tollefson counters that the strike should be in effect after the district court dismissal due to the PLRA’s text and Congress’s desire to ban meritless claims. This decision has the potential to affect how the statute is interpreted in the lower courts and the caseload volume of court dockets.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources