The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
MANSON BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
v. ) 20-11687-FDS
)
JOSEPH PEPE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
ORDER
SAYLOR, C.J.
On September 18, 2020, Manson Brown filed a letter in this closed case asking the Court
to waive any further payments towards the filing fee. Docket No. 66. In his letter, Brown
explains that only $8.00 remains in his account after making monthly payments for the filing fee
and restitution. Id. He states that he is obligated to make filing fee payments for a second civil
action. See Brown v. Pepe, et al., No. 13-12123-RGS. Id.
The Court is unable to waive Brown’s obligation to make payments towards the filing
fee. Congress set the payment requirements found in the in forma pauperis (“IFP”) statute and
there is no statutory authority for a court to waive payment. 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. 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) . . . .”).
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: October 27, 2020 Chief Judge, United States District Court
2