UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

JOSEPH HARTSOCK, )

 ) CAUSE NO. 1:01-CV-004 WL

Plaintiff, ) and CAUSE NO. 1:01-CV-018 WL

vs. ) 1:01-CV-071 WL

 ) 1:01-CV-077 WL

MATTHEW CADE, et al. ) 1:01-CV-238 WL

 )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Joseph Hartsock, a pro se prisoner, wrote this court a vulgar letter inquiring

about his filing fees in which he asks, “what the f*** is going on.” Letter at 1

(asterisks added). Mr. Hartsock cites six cases for which he is being charged. This

opinion addresses only the five cases identified in the caption of this case. The

sixth case, Hartsock v. Allen County Jail, 1:04-CV-422 TS (N.D. Ind. filed Nov. 12,

2004) involves ongoing matters related to his filing fees before another judge of

this court and is therefore properly addressed solely in that case. 

Mr. Hartsock argues that the court costs were paid by the defendants in

1:01-CV-18 and 1:01-CV-077. The records of this court show that there is a

balance due for both of those cases. Pursuant to this court’s orders in those cases

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Mr. Hartsock is liable for the payment of those

filing fees. No agreement that Mr. Hartsock may have reached with the defendants

could have obviated his legal obligation to pay this court. 

Mr. Hartsock also states, “I don’t know where the hell ya’ll got” 1:01-CV238. This case was filed by Mr. Hartsock on June 19, 2001 against Sheriff James

USDC IN/ND case 1:01-cv-00004-WCL document 9 filed 06/02/05 page 1 of 4
2

Herman, Jail Commander Thomas H. Hathaway, and Allen County. It is unclear

why Mr. Hartsock does not remember this case, but the record shows that he has

already made seventeen payments on this case from May 2002 until November

2003. 

Pursuant to Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 434 (7th Cir. 1997) overruled

on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000) and Walker v.

O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000), the courts are to monitor prison officials’

calculation of installment payments. Therefore, this court has reviewed Mr.

Hartsock’s prison trust account ledger from March 13, 1996 to June 1, 2005.

Mr. Hartsock has unpaid filing fees in all five of these cases. 

Case Type Order Date & Docket # Balance

1) 1:01-CV-004 District Filing Fee 2/2001, # 3 $ 137.81

2) 1:01-CV-018 District Filing Fee 2/2001, # 2 $ 137.81

3) 1:01-CV-071 District Filing Fee 3/2001, # 2 $ 29.99

4) 1:01-CV-077 District Filing Fee 3/2001, # 3 $ 137.81

5) 1:01-CV-238 District Filing Fee 8/2001, # 3 $ 29.99

TOTAL $ 473.41

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) requires that an inmate pay 20 percent of the

preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account. 

This [statutory] language places on the prisoner a responsibility to

remit at this rate – no greater, but no less either. A prisoner who fails

to ensure that the required sum is remitted in one month must make

it up later; the statute does not allow deferral past the time when

application of the formula would have produced full payment.

Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). 

USDC IN/ND case 1:01-cv-00004-WCL document 9 filed 06/02/05 page 2 of 4
3

A prisoner who filed one suit remits 20 percent of income to his

prison trust account; a suit and an appeal then must commit 40

percent, and so on. Five suits or appeals mean that the prisoner’s

entire monthly income must be turned over to the court until the fees

have been paid . . ..

Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 436 (7th Cir. 1997) overruled on other grounds

by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000) and Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d

626 (7th Cir. 2000).

In December 2001, Mr. Hartsock received $1,000.00. Because the filing fee

order in each of these cases had been entered before that date, Mr. Hartsock was

obligated to pay toward all five of these filing fees. Because 20% of $1,000.00

($200.00) exceeds the full amount of the original filing fee ($150.00) for each of

these cases, Mr. Hartsock was obligated to have paid off all of these fees in

December 2001. This means that Mr. Hartsock can no longer defer payment of the

filing fees that should have been paid ($473.41) and that he must therefore remit

100% of his income until these arrearage amounts have been paid in full. Because

Mr. Hartsock is delinquent in paying these fees and because he may no longer

defer their payment, it is no longer relevant whether he receives ten or more

dollars in a month: all of Mr. Hartsock’s income must be taken to pay the

arrearage amounts. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court:

(1) ORDERS the agency having custody of Joseph Hartsock, IDOC

#996460, to remit all of the money in Mr. Hartsock’s prisoner trust account (not

USDC IN/ND case 1:01-cv-00004-WCL document 9 filed 06/02/05 page 3 of 4
4

to exceed $473.41) to the clerk of the court in payment of these arrearage

amounts; 

(2) ORDERS the agency having custody of Joseph Hartsock to remit 100%

of Mr. Hartsock’s future income until it has payed these arrearage amounts

totaling $473.41; and 

(3) DIRECTS the clerk to mail a copy of this order to the inmate trust

account department of the institution or facility where Mr. Hartsock is currently

housed. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 2 , 2005

 S/William C. Lee 

 William C. Lee, Judge

United States District Court

USDC IN/ND case 1:01-cv-00004-WCL document 9 filed 06/02/05 page 4 of 4