Court Opinion

ID: 9787247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:13:48.14957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:45.174873
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, J.,
dissenting:
¶ 1 In Foust v. Pearman, 1992 OK 135, 850 P.2d 1047, the Court addressed the issue of whether district courts could deplete a prisoner's funds to require payment of a filing fee when the prisoner files a pauper's affidavit. The Court determined that district courts are authorized to require partial payment of filing fees by prisoners, but not their "last dollar." The authority for the Court's decision came from 28 0.8.1991 § 1521 which allows the trial court to waive fees if a person is unable to pay, and 57 O.S.1991 § 5652 which allows the trial court to consider the amount of funds an inmate has on deposit with the Department of Corrections.
¶ 2 Three years later, in an apparent reaction to Foust, the Legislature enacted 12 O.S. Supp.1995 $ 2003.13 which provides that an application to proceed in forma pauperis *1132may be denied if the value of the prisoner's money exceeds $200.00. Noticeably absent from the statute is any explicit authority for the trial court to assess a partial payment if the value of the money is less than $200.00.
T3 The Legislature is presumed to be familiar with extant judicial construction of statutes.4 Legislative silence, when the legislature has the authority to speak, may be considered as an understanding of legislative intent.5 Section 2008.1 was enacted after Foust, and had the Legislature intended for the district courts to assess partial fees to a prisoner who had holdings of less than $200.00 it could have done so, but it declined. Accordingly, the statute implicitly waives the fee requirement for prisoners whose holdings are less than $200.00.

. Title 28 0.$.1991 § 152 provides in pertinent part:
. C. In any case where the litigant claims he has a just cause of action, and that, by reason of poverty, he is unable to pay the fees and costs provided for in this section and financially unable to employ counsel, upon the filing of an affidavit in forma pauperis executed before any officer authorized by law to administer oaths by such litigant in such action to that effect and upon satisfactory showing to the court that said litigant has no means and is, therefore, unable to pay the applicable fees and costs to employ counsel, no fees or costs shall be required.... In all such cases, the court shall promptly set for hearing the determination of the eligibility of the original affiant to litigate without payment of fees or costs...."
The statute was amended in 1997, 2000 and 2001. The current version of the pertinent portions of the statute remain substantially unchanged.

. Title 57 § 565 provides:
'In determining whether or not an inmate shall be allowed to use an affidavit in forma pauperis, the court shall consider the amount of funds an inmate has on deposit with the Department of Corrections."

. Title 12 0.8. Supp.1995 § 2003.1 was enacted in 1995 and it provides in pertinent part:
. C. In all cases in which the petitioner, movant, or plaintiff is an inmate of a penal institution and desires to proceed in forma pauperis, in addition to the proof of poverty required by subsection C of Section 152 of Title 28 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the inmate shall submit a certificate executed by an authorized officer of the institution in which the inmate is confined by stating the amount of money or securities on deposit to the inmate's credit in any account in the institution. The certificate may be considered by the court in acting on the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, leave to proceed in forma pau-peris may be denied if the value of the money and securities in petitioner's, movant's, or plaintiff's institutional account exceeds Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00)."
*1132The current version remains unchanged.

. Sudbury v. Deterding, 2001 OK 10, 116, 19 P.3d 856, Special Indemnity Fund v. Figgins, 1992 OK 59, T 14, 831 P.2d 1379.

. Owings v. Pool Well Service, 1992 OK 159, 18, 843 P.2d 380.