The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-13123-RGS
MANSON BROWN
v.
JOSEPH PEPE, ET AL.
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON MOTION FOR WAIVER OF
FURTHER PAYMENT OF FILING FEE
September 21, 2020
STEARNS, D.J.
Having previously allowed Manson Brown’s Motion to Waive Filing
Fee [Dkt #62], it has been pointed out that, under the in forma pauperis
(IFP) statute at 28 U.S.C. 1915(b), the payment requirements are set by
Congress and therefore there is no statutory authority for a court to waive its
requirements. See Messere v. White, 2014 WL 202759, at *2 (D. Mass. Jan.
15, 2014) (O’Toole, J.) (“Having filed the complaint, plaintiffs and the Court
are both statutorily limited by the strictures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. . . . The PLRA
‘makes no provision for return of fees partially paid or for cancellation of the
remaining indebtedness.’”) (quoting Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260, 261 (2d
Cir.2001)); Calderon v. Dickhaut, 2011 WL 3652766, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 17,
2011) (“In enacting the PLRA, Congress has left little discretion to the courts
in this area . . . . Accordingly, this Court is required to assess an initial partial
filing payment and collect subsequent payments on an incremental basis
“until the filing fees are paid.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (2).”); Fowlkes v.
Dennehy, No. C.A. 05-11749-JLT, 2010 WL 4456147, at *1 (D. Mass. Nov. 4,
2010) (“This Court is unaware of any statutory authority by which a
prisoner's filing fee obligations under the in forma pauperis statute may be
vacated in whole or in part while imprisoned, nor has Plaintiff cited to any
legal authority supporting his request for a waiver or deferment of any of his
filing fee obligations. In enacting the PLRA, Congress has left little discretion
to the courts in this area; under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) . . . . “). Regrettably, the
court is bound by this statute and must supplement its earlier Order and
DENY Mr. Brown’s motion.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns___________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE