Pickens v. Hendricks et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00030-MR
BRANDON PICKENS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
STEVEN HENDRICKS, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Response to Court
Order” [Doc. 6], which is construed as a Motion for a partial refund of the
filing fee and to proceed in forma pauperis.
Pro se incarcerated Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and paid the full $402 filing fee. [See Doc. 1]. The correctional
institution where the Plaintiff is incarcerated was mailed an Order for Prisoner
Trust Account Statement in error, as the Plaintiff has not moved to proceed
in forma pauperis.1 [See Doc. 4]. The Plaintiff now asserts that he should
be refunded $52 because the Order for Prisoner Trust Account Statement
1 Attachment 1 to the Complaint was initially docketed as a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, but that docketing error has now been corrected. [See Doc. 1-1].
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 11 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 2

2
refers to a $350 filing fee, and he also asserts that he is, in fact, seeking to
proceed in forma pauperis.
The statutory filing fee of $350 applies to prisoners who are granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis; they are not charged the Court’s $52
administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. The Plaintiff, however,
has paid the filing fee in full and has not filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis. Therefore, the $402 applies to him and no overpayment
occurred. The Plaintiff’s request for a $52 refund is therefore denied. To the
extent that the Plaintiff asks to proceed in forma pauperis, this request is
denied because the Plaintiff has paid the filing fee in full; he has not filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis; and his Trust Fund Account
Statement [Doc. 7] indicates that he has access to substantial funds.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Response to Court
Order” [Doc. 6], which is construed as a Motion for a partial refund of the
filing fee and to proceed in forma pauperis, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 29, 2021
Case 1:21-cv-00030-MR Document 11 Filed 03/30/21 Page 2 of 2