Opinion ID: 2974290
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: filing fees

Text: A. Second Filing Fee for Refiling Complaint After Dismissal for Failure to Exhaust Owens claims that he should not have to pay a second filing fee for refiling his complaint after it was initially dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust.6 We agree. In interpreting the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement, we have held that prisoners filing § 1983 cases involving prison conditions “must allege and show that they have exhausted all available state administrative 6 In Owens’s second action (Docket No. 3:03-mc-00085), the district court denied Owens’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Although Owens’s Notice of Appeal references his filing fee regarding this docket number, it appears that he referenced the wrong docket number, and the Middle District of Tennessee clerk’s office corrected the docket number to reflect his third action (Docket No. 3:03-cv-00893). Because the reference to the second action was in error and because Owens’s second action is not before us, we do not address the district court’s denial of his IFP application in that action. No. 03-6559 Owens v. Keeling et al. Page 8 remedies.”7 Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104. We have instructed “[d]istrict courts [to] enforce the exhaustion requirement sua sponte if not raised by the defendant” by dismissing the complaint without prejudice when this standard is not met. Id. The “heightened pleading standards” allow federal courts to determine whether the exhaustion requirement has been met without having to rely on “‘time-consuming evidentiary hearings’” and responsive pleadings. Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 489 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Knuckles El, 215 F.3d at 642). We have further held that prisoners cannot amend their complaints to cure the failure to satisfy the exhaustion pleading requirement in the initial complaint. Id. “The bar on amendment . . . serves the purpose of the heightened pleading requirement, permitting courts to assess the fundamental viability of the claim on the basis of the initial complaint. The possibility of amendment undermines the screening process, preventing courts from efficiently evaluating whether the plaintiff met the exhaustion requirement.” Id. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) provides that “[t]he clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in8 such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350 . . . .” Id. (emphasis added). A prisoner who “refile[s]” a complaint alleging the same claims regarding prison conditions after it was initially dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust is not “instituting” a suit, but is merely following the particular procedure chosen by this court for curing the initial complaint’s deficiency. See Baxter, 305 F.3d at 489 (requiring courts to “assess the fundamental viability of the claim on the basis of the initial complaint” and “efficiently evaluat[e] whether the plaintiff met the exhaustion requirement”). Therefore, we hold that when a prisoner “refiles” a complaint raising the same prison-conditions claims as a complaint that was initially dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust under the PLRA, id., the prisoner need not pay an additional filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Thus, we direct the district court to reimburse9 Owens the $150 he paid when he refiled his complaint in satisfaction of the Baxter requirements. B. In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal Owens also appeals the district court’s order denying his application to file his appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The district court denied the application on the ground that Owens’s appeal would not be taken in good faith. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(5) governs the procedure for consideration of a request to proceed IFP on appeal after the district court has denied such an application. It provides that A party may file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the court of appeals within 30 days after service of the notice prescribed in Rule 24(a)(4). The motion must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the district court and the district court’s statement of reasons for its action. If no affidavit was filed in the district court, the party must include the affidavit prescribed by Rule 24(a)(1). FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5). The Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 24 elucidates that Rule 24(a)(5) 7 As mentioned earlier, in its next Term the Supreme Court will be deciding whether this interpretation of the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is correct or whether nonexhaustion is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the defendant. See Jones, 135 F. App’x at 839, cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. at 1462. 8 At the time that Owens filed his complaints, the filing fee was $150. 9 We note that a requirement that Owens pay a second filing fee for refiling his complaint is particularly disturbing in this case because the district court’s initial sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for failure to exhaust was incorrect; Owens had fully exhausted and should have been able to proceed with his complaint. No. 03-6559 Owens v. Keeling et al. Page 9 establishes a subsequent motion in the court of appeals, rather than an appeal from the order of denial or from the certification of lack of good faith, as the proper procedure for calling in question the correctness of the action of the district court. The simple and expeditious motion procedure seems clearly preferable to an appeal. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5) 1967 advisory committee’s note. The rule, as applied to prisoners in Owens’s circumstances, has been explained as follows: If the district court certifies that an appeal is not taken in good faith, the appellant may still move in the court of appeals for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In the case of a prisoner, certification that the appeal is not in good faith allows two choices. The prisoner either may pay the full filing fee and any relevant costs and proceed on appeal for plenary review or contest the certification decision by filing a motion for leave to proceed as a pauper with the court of appeals. 16A WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3970 (3d ed. 1999). In McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997), we stated that “a challenge [to a district court’s denial of pauper status] does not exist for a prisoner.” That was at a time, however, when Floyd v. United States Postal Service, 105 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 1997), was still the law of the circuit. Floyd, a non-prisoner case, considered the conflict between the then recently enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), which provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in10writing that the appeal is not taken in good faith,” and the version of Rule 24(a) then in effect, which provided for the filing of a motion in the court of appeals for consideration of a request to proceed IFP on appeal after the denial of such a request by the district court. Id. at 277-78. Floyd held that because “a statute passed after the effective date of a federal rule repeals the rule to the extent of the actual conflict,” § 1915(a)(3) controlled, and thus a district court’s denial of a motion to proceed IFP on appeal on the ground that the appeal would not be taken in good faith was final. Id. at 278. After Rule 24(a)(5) was amended on December 1, 1998 to its current version, we again considered the conflict between Rule 24 and § 1915(a)(3). See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803-04 (6th Cir. 1999). In Callihan, another non-prisoner case, we concluded that pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, which provides that “[a]ll laws in conflict with [the federal] rules [of procedure] shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect,” 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b), the amended Rule 24 trumped the conflicting provision in § 1915(a)(3). 178 F.3d at 803. We thus “abandon[ed] our holding in Floyd that once the district court has certified that an appeal from a non-prisoner would not be taken in good faith, the litigant may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.” Id. We held that the party could file, within thirty days of service of the district court’s order denying IFP status on appeal, a motion with this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal in accordance with the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(5). Id. (overturning in part Floyd, 105 F.3d at 277-78). Given our holding in Callihan that Rule 24(a)(5) controls in the face of the conflicting provision in § 1915(a)(3) and given Rule 24(a)(5)’s general reference to “a party” without any suggestion that the rule is limited to non-prisoners, the procedure under Rule 24(a)(5) is available 10 In relevant part, Rule 24(a) then provided that: If a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied by the district court, or if the district court shall certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find that the party is otherwise not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, the clerk shall forthwith serve notice of such action. A motion for leave so to proceed may be filed in the court of appeals within 30 days after service of notice of the action of the district court. The motion shall be accompanied by a copy of the affidavit filed in the district court, or by the affidavit prescribed by the first paragraph of this subdivision if no affidavit has been filed in the district court, and by a copy of the statement of reasons given by the district court for its action. No. 03-6559 Owens v. Keeling et al. Page 10 to all parties. The PLRA’s provisions regarding filing fees were “enacted to require only prisoners to pay the entire sum of their fees and costs” and “to impede inmates from initiating frivolous legal proceedings.” Floyd, 105 F.3d at 276. Allowing prisoners to follow the procedure set forth in Rule 24(a)(5) to file a motion in the court of appeals seeking IFP status on appeal does not infringe upon these goals. Indeed, we routinely grant prisoners’ motions to this court pursuant to Rule 24(a)(5) to proceed IFP on appeal. See, e.g., Bridgeman v. Bureau of Prisons, 112 F. App’x 411, 413 (6th Cir. 2004) (unpublished order); Asprilla v. Davis, 83 F. App’x 86, 88 (6th Cir. 2003) (unpublished order). In light of Rule 24(a)(5)’s procedure for a subsequent motion to the court of appeals requesting leave to proceed IFP on appeal rather than an appeal of the district court’s order denying pauper status on appeal, we have previously held that “[a]ny appeal from a[] [district court’s] order denying pauper status on appeal will not be entertained and shall be dismissed sua sponte.” Callihan, 178 F.3d at 804. In this case, Owens requested this court to allow him to proceed IFP on appeal by listing the district court’s order denying him IFP status on appeal in his Notice of Appeal rather than by filing a separate motion with this court. Explaining its prior precedent, the Supreme Court has stated that the requirements of the rules of procedure should be liberally construed and . . . ‘mere technicalities’ should not stand in the way of consideration of a case on its merits. Thus, if a litigant files papers in a fashion that is technically at variance with the letter of a procedural rule, a court may nonetheless find that the litigant has complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires. Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316-17 (1988) (citation omitted) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 (1962)). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 provides that “[o]n its own or a party’s motion, a court of appeals may — to expedite its decision or for other good cause — suspend any provision of these rules in a particular case and order proceedings as it directs, except as otherwise provided in Rule 26(b).” FED. R. APP. P. 2; see also Torres, 487 U.S. at 314. “The purpose of the Rule is to ensure that justice is not denied on the basis of a mere technicality.” Lazy Oil Co. v. Witco Corp., 166 F.3d 581, 587 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing FED. R. APP. P. 2 1967 advisory committee’s note (“The rule also contains a general authorization to the courts to relieve litigants of the consequences of default where manifest injustice would otherwise result.”)). There is good cause in this case to consider Owens’s submission as satisfying the requirements of Rule 24(a)(5). Owens filed his notice of appeal and proceeded pro se in this court within the thirty-day time limit for filing a motion with this court to proceed IPF set by Rule 24(a)(5). We construe filings by pro se litigants liberally. Spotts v. United States, 429 F.3d 248, 250 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). Owens pursued this matter diligently by filing a notice of appeal that specified as an issue the district court’s denial of his application for IFP status on appeal. It is understandable that Owens, a prisoner then proceeding pro se, would not be apprised of the specific procedure that is set forth in Rule 24(a)(5) for pursuing IFP status on appeal after denial of such an application by the district court. As “the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure were not adopted to set traps and pitfalls by way of technicalities for unwary litigants,” Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 259 (11th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted), Owens should have the opportunity to proceed IFP on appeal, particularly when the district court erred in dismissing his application in that court on the ground that the appeal would not be taken in good faith. See FED. R. APP. P. 2 1967 advisory committee’s note; Lazy Oil Co., 166 F.3d at 587. Moreover, because Owens included this matter in his notice of the appeal, the defendants were on notice of his intent to have this matter reconsidered and thus are not prejudiced by our decision to allow him to do so. The concern about prejudice to the defendants is further alleviated No. 03-6559 Owens v. Keeling et al. Page 11 because whether Owens is entitled to proceed IFP on appeal has no effect on the defendants in this litigation. Therefore, we exercise our authority under Rule 2 to consider Owens’s filing as a motion to this court for pauper status under Rule 24(a)(5). In light of our holding that Owens has exhausted his administrative remedies, we conclude that Owens’s appeal was taken in good faith and, based on his affidavit regarding his inability to pay, we grant Owens’s request to proceed IFP on appeal. Any costs that were paid to this court in excess of the amount that would have been required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)-(2) shall be refunded to Owens, and the filing fee shall from this point forward be assessed as stated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)-(2). See McGore, 114 F.3d at 604-08.