Opinion ID: 2816582
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Attorney Fees (Jan. 26, 2015)

Text: Mr. Ruppert has not prevailed in this appeal. Thus, we deny his motion for an award of attorney fees. 3. “Motion to Be Exempt from 1997(e) PLRA” (Jan. 26, 2015) This motion is, in effect, an unauthorized supplemental brief. This document is stricken. 4. “Motion for Plenary Review” (Jan. 26, 2015) This motion is denied for the reasons discussed above. 5. Motion for Award of Damages (Jan. 26, 2015) This motion is denied for the reasons discussed above. respond. Though the defendants moved to strike the response on timeliness grounds, the district court denied the motion to strike and considered the response. We too have considered the response brief. - 13 - 6. “Motion to Waive Filing Fee or Assess Filing Fee for Second Appeal No. 14-2123 into Pending Appeal No. 14-2030” (Oct. 6, 2014) Mr. Ruppert seeks relief from the filing fee. We deny the request. In part, Mr. Ruppert wants us to waive the filing fee. For the sake of argument, we can assume that we have this authority. Cf. Porter v. Dep’t of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 180 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act prevents the Court of Appeals from waiving an inmate plaintiff’s filing fee). But even with this assumption, we would deny the motion because Mr. Ruppert has not justified waiver of the filing fee. Mr. Ruppert is also apparently seeking some alternative form of relief with regard to the filing fee. The precise nature of that relief is unclear. For example, it is possible that Mr. Ruppert is asking us to apply his installment payments in the first appeal (No. 14-2030) to the filing fee in both appeals (14-2030 and 14-2123). If so, the request would effectively involve waiver of the filing fee in the second appeal (No. 14-2123); and we have already held that Mr. Ruppert is not entitled to waive the filing fee in the second appeal (No. 14-2123). Thus, if this is what Mr. Ruppert is wanting, we would deny the request. But it is not clear that this is what Mr. Ruppert is wanting. It may be that he is simply wanting us to postpone his installment payments in the - 14 - second appeal (No. 14-2123) until he has fully paid the filing fee in the first appeal (No. 14-2030). If so, we have held in Christensen v. Big Horn Board of County Commissioners that this relief is unavailable. 374 F. App’x 821, 829-33 (10th Cir. 2010). We regard Christensen as persuasive, concluding as we did in that case that the installment payments must be paid simultaneously in both appeals. Thus, if Mr. Ruppert is requesting postponement of the installments in the second appeal (No. 14-2123), we would deny the request. Accordingly, we deny the motion based on either of the possible constructions. 7. Request for Fee Consolidation (Oct. 6, 2014) This request is denied for the reasons stated above. 8. Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Oct. 6, 2014) This motion is granted.