# Lee v. Brown

> District Court, W.D. Virginia · June 17, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10692957

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Virginia
- **Decided:** June 17, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10692957

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

TYRONE HIAWATHA LEE, )
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:20-cv-00600
)
v. )
) By: Joel C. Hoppe
STACY Y. BROWN, et al., ) United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants. )

ORDER
Tyrone Hiawatha Lee, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, along with a partial application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On October
28, 2020, the presiding district judge denied the IFP motion and dismissed the action without
prejudice pursuant to the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Lee subsequently filed
a motion for reconsideration. That motion was granted on May 12, 2022, and the case was
reinstated to the active docket. In a separate conditional filing order entered that same day, Lee
was directed to submit a completed consent form for collection of the filing fee, as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b). Pending before the court is Lee’s motion for relief from that order, in which he
objects to being required to consent to payment of the filing fee. (ECF No. 17.) For the following
reasons, the motion is denied.
In 1995, Congress “placed several limitations on prisoner litigation in federal courts” by
enacting the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016).
“Among those limitations, Congress required prisoners qualified to proceed in forma pauperis
nevertheless to pay an initial partial filing fee.” Id. They are then required to “complete payment
of the filing fee . . . in monthly installments.” Id. Thus, regardless of whether prisoners are granted
leave to proceed IFP, they are eventually “required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). There are no exceptions to this requirement. As other courts have noted, “there is
nothing in the language of § 1915(b)(1) suggesting that any prisoner under any circumstance is
exempt from paying the full filing fee, nor is there anything in the language of the statute providing
[courts] with the authority to exempt a prisoner from paying the full amount due.” Ippolito v. Buss,

293 F. Supp. 2d 881, 883 (N.D. Ind. 2003); see also Jamison v. United States Fed. Gov’t, No.
1:18-cv-00419, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213567, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2019) (“The PLRA
contains no language suggesting that the courts have authority or any discretion to allow prisoners
to depart or deviate from the payment schedule explicitly set out in [§ 1915(b)].”).
For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Lee’s motion for relief from the conditional
filing order, ECF No. 17, is DENIED. Lee shall return the signed consent form to the court within
fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in
the dismissal of this action without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order and the consent form to Lee.
It is so ORDERED.

ENTER: June 17, 2022

/s/ Joel C. Hoppe
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10692957. Public record. Not legal advice.