Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00952/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00952-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amante Gary Evans, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-952-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

On April 29, 2010, Plaintiff Amante Gary Evans, who is confined in the Maricopa

County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 11, 2010 Order, the

Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint for failure to comply

with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file

an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On June 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In a June 15, 2010

Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state

a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that cured the

deficiencies identified in the Order. On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended

Complaint (Doc. 9). In an August 2, 2010 Order, the Court dismissed the Second Amended

Complaint and this action for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court entered judgment

on the same date.

Case 2:10-cv-00952-GMS--JRI Document 13 Filed 02/01/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

On January 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Letter” in which he requests that his filing fee

be refunded, and that the Court provide him with information about where to file a lawsuit

against the police or military and provide him with the addresses and phone numbers of

several government agencies.

First, it is improper for a party to communicate directly with court personnel. Simply

mailing a letter to the Clerk of Court, the judge, or any court personnel is unacceptable. Any

request for action by the Court must be in the form of a motion that complies with the Rules

of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the Local Rules).

Any future letters directed to the Clerk of Court, the judge, or any court personnel will not

be filed, will be stricken from the record, and will be returned to Plaintiff. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for return of the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1)

states:

[I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the

prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court shall

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–monthly period immediately proceeding the filing of the complaint or notice

of appeal.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not provide any authority or mechanism for the Court to

waive the payment of Plaintiff’s filing fee, or to return the filing fee after dismissal of an

action. 

It is clear that in amending 28 U.S.C. § 1915 with the enactment of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996) (PLRA),

Congress intended to provide financial disincentives for prisoners filing lawsuits in forma

pauperis. See Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir.1997) (“Congress enacted PLRA

with the principal purpose of deterring frivolous prisoner litigation by instituting economic

costs for prisoners wishing to file civil claims. See, e.g., H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-378, at

166-67 (1995); 141 Cong. Rec. S14626 (daily ed.) (Sept. 29, 1995) (statement of Sen.

Dole)”). 

Case 2:10-cv-00952-GMS--JRI Document 13 Filed 02/01/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

The decision to file and prosecute this case was made by Plaintiff before he filed this

case. Having filed this case, Plaintiff and the Court are both statutorily limited by the

strictures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to return the filing fee in this

matter will be denied.

With respect to Plaintiff’s requests regarding where to file complaints, and addresses

and phone numbers for federal agencies, the Court does not provide legal advice or

assistance. The Court will therefore deny these requests.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s January 24, 2011 Letter (Doc. 12),

which the Court has construed as a Motion for Return of Filing Fee, is denied.

DATED this 1st day of February, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00952-GMS--JRI Document 13 Filed 02/01/11 Page 3 of 3