Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06367/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06367-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Kaiser
Appellee
John Pack
Appellant

Document Text:

JOHN PACK, 

v. 

FILL D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Stat.es Court of Appeah 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR 2 D 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

No. 92-6367 

STEPHEN KAISER, 

Defendant-Appellee . 

(D.C. No . CIV-92-2123-C) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiff John Pack, an Oklahoma state prisoner, attempted to 

file a prose complaint in district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This was accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP), supported by the poverty declaration 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The district court denied the 

application for IFP status because plaintiff's mandatory savings 

account at the prison contained more than $200, and it dismissed 

the action when plaintiff did not pay the filing fee. Plaintiff 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used L any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case , res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-6367 Document: 010110199062 Date Filed: 03/29/1993 Page: 1 
appealed the judgment. We grant plaintiff's motion to proceed on 

1 appeal IFP. 

We address only the issue whether the district court properly 

denied plaintiff's IFP application, thereby refusing to permit him 

to proceed with suit. 

Oklahoma law requires at least twenty per cent of an inmate's 

wages be segregated in an account to be paid upon an inmate's discharge or assignment to a prerelease program. Those funds may, 

however, be used for fees and costs of filing a civil suit in federal court. Okla. Stat. Ann. 57, § 549(A) (5 ) . The district court 

has adopted a rule, W.D. Okla. Local Rule SH, permitting denial of 

IFP status when a prisoner's account balance exceeds $200. Plaintiff's declaration supporting his IFP motion reveals sufficient 

funds in plaintiff's account to cover the costs of initiating 

suit. A person should not be denied the opportunity to proceed 

under 28 U. S.C. § 1915(a) simply because he or she is not "absolutely destitute." Adkins v. E. I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 

U. S. 331, 339-40 (1948). However, prisoners may be required to 

utilize funds in prison accounts in order to initiate litigation, 

Shimabuku v. Britton, 357 F. Supp. 825, 826 (D. Kan. 1973), aff'd, 

503 F.2d 38 (10th Cir. 1974), and there is no indication in the 

record of any special circumstances that would render plaintiff 

unable to use these funds to support his litigation. 

1 Despite our affirmance of the district court's decision, we 

grant plaintiff the right to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 

This is done both to reach the merits of his claim and to leave 

him sufficient money in his prison account to enable him to pay 

the fees necessary to file his complaint in district court if he 

chooses to do so . 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6367 Document: 010110199062 Date Filed: 03/29/1993 Page: 2 
The district court's denial of IFP status is supported by the 

law and was not an abuse of discretion. 2 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

2 Because plaintiff was not permitted to file his complaint, it 

is not included in the record on appeal. Thus, we do not comment 

on the merits of plaintiff's alleged cause of action and whether 

it might survive dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if plaintiff decides to pay the filing fee in order to get his complaint before the district court. 

We have examined only whether procedurally this matter was handled 

correctly under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), applicable Oklahoma law and 

rules of the district court. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6367 Document: 010110199062 Date Filed: 03/29/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-6367 Document: 010110199062 Date Filed: 03/29/1993 Page: 4