Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/133/770/590172/
Timestamp: 2020-06-02 08:06:11
Document Index: 74858717

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 2255', '§ 1915', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 1915', '§ 2241']

In Re Howard Phillips, Petitioner.page True, Warden; United States Board of Parole, Realparties in Interest, 133 F.3d 770 (10th Cir. 1998) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1998 › In Re Howard Phillips, Petitioner.page True, Warden; United States Board of Parole, Realparties in I...
In Re Howard Phillips, Petitioner.page True, Warden; United States Board of Parole, Realparties in Interest, 133 F.3d 770 (10th Cir. 1998)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 133 F.3d 770 (10th Cir. 1998) Jan. 6, 1998
We consider first the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis who bring a "civil action" or appeal a judgment from a civil action must pay all filing fees. United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 741 (10th Cir. 1997). We decided in Simmonds, id. at 744, consistent with other circuits that have addressed the issue, that "neither habeas corpus or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, nor appeals of those proceedings are 'civil actions' for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915." Shortly thereafter, we added to the category of proceedings not covered by the PLRA mandatory fee requirements those petitions for writs of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) ( § 2241 proceedings and appeals of those proceedings not "civil actions" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (2) and (b)).
Upon further consideration of the matter, we now conclude that this circuit will no longer require mandatory fees under the PLRA for filing petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to compel district courts to hear and decide actions brought solely under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254 and 2255. To the limited extent that any of our earlier cases could be interpreted to the contrary, they are overruled.1
We have circulated this opinion to the en banc court, which has concurred with this ruling