# Payne v. Commonwealth Department of Corrections

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · December 5, 2002 · 813 A.2d 918

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748333

## Case

- **Full name:** John M. PAYNE; Paul Nolder; Frank Grazulis; Charles Lee; Richard Guy; All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioners, v. COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Martin F. Horn, Secretary; Honorable Thomas Ridge, Governor; Robert Bitner, Chief Hearing Examiner, Respondents
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 5, 2002
- **Citations:** 813 A.2d 918; 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 974
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Pellegrini
- **Judges:** Colins, Smith-Ribner, Pellegrini, Friedman, Leadbetter, Cohn, Leavitt
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9748333

## Opinion text

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
While I agree with the majority as to Counts I, II and IV, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion as to one portion of Count III, specifically, that John M. Payne, Paul Nolder, Frank Grazulis, Charles Lee, Richard Guy and all others similarly situated (Petitioners) are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to their allegations regarding Sections 6602(a) through (c) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6602(a) — (c), 1 requiring that prisoners *931 pay filing fees when they have money to pay those fees.
In Section 111(A) of its opinion, the majority concludes that Petitioners are entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding their claim arising under Sections 6602(a) — (c) of the Judicial Code which provides that prisoners proceeding in for-ma pauperis be excused from paying the full filing fee prior to the initiation of the action or appeal, but requires prisoners to pay the full amount of the filing fee when funds exist. Granting Petitioners’ request for judgment as a matter of law, the majority opines that because Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(f) provides that a party proceeding in forma pauperis shall not be required to pay any cost or fee payable to any court or prothonotary or any public officer or employee, and Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that all laws shall be suspended to the extent they are inconsistent with rules prescribed by our Supreme Court governing the practice, procedure and conduct of all the courts, Sections 6602(a) — (c) of the Judicial Code are invalid.
However, filing fees are not normally considered to encompass “the practice, procedure and conduct of all the courts.” Filing fees are considered a part of the budgetary process funding the operation of the Commonwealth and funding of the courts. In fact, the General Assembly retains authority over filing fees in that it establishes all of the fees and charges required in conjunction with actions filed within the Commonwealth, 42 Pa.C.S. § 1725, as well as other filing fees that are collected as part of the court process to fund other operations. See e.g. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2505 (filing fees paid in conjunction with report of intention to adopt used to provide counseling free of charge to those who cannot afford such counseling); Section 802 of the Liquor Code, Act of April 12, *932 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. § 8-802 (fees generated by the Liquor Code paid into The State Stores Fund, and, in part, turned over to the Department of Health for use by Office of Drug and Alcohol Programs). What would make a filing fee unconstitutional is if. it totally denied a prisoner’s access to courts because he could not pay the fee. 2
Here, the provision at issue merely recognizes that a prisoner seeking to proceed in forma pauperis is not necessarily on even ground with other private individuals seeking to file a civil claim, because prisoners do not face the same financial burden that other individuals may face; prisoners, unlike others, are provided with room, board and medical expenses as well as other basic needs by the Commonwealth. Based on those reasons and because filing fees are a budgetary concern, I do not believe that requiring a prisoner to pay filing fees when funds exist to pay them is violative of the separation of powers or our Constitution. 3
Accordingly, while I join in the majority’s disposition of Counts I, II and IV, I respectfully dissent as to Count 111(A).
Judge LEAVITT joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.
. Those sections provide:
(a) Prisoner filing requirements.—
(1) A prisoner seeking to bring prison conditions litigation without the prepayment of fees or security due to indigency must submit a request to the court to proceed without the prepayment of fees. The request must include a certified copy of the prisoner’s prison account statement, which shall be provided by the prison, for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal. The request shall include a statement of any other assets of the prisoner.
(2) The court shall deny in forma pauper-is status to any prisoner where:
*931 G) the request is not accompanied by a certified copy as provided in paragraph (1);
(ii) the average monthly deposits or average highest monthly balance for the six-month period preceding the filing of the action exceeds the amount of the filing fee; or
(iii) other grounds exist for the denial of in forma pauperis status pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
(b) Partial filing fees.—
(1)The court may grant in forma pauperis status to excuse the prisoner from paying the full filing fee prior to the initiation of the action or appeal. Where in forma pauperis status is granted, the court shall order the prisoner to pay the full amount of the filing fee and shall assess and, whén funds exist, collect a full or partial payment of the filing fee which shall be the greater of the following:
(i) The average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account.
(ii) The average highest monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal requiring the payment of a fee.
(2) The court shall send a copy of the assessment order to the prisoner, the parties to the action and the prison having custody of the prisoner. The court may also direct upon condition of maintaining the action that the prisoner make a written request to the prison officials to deduct payments required by the court.
(3) The court may modify the assessment order for cause.
(c) Payment of filing fees. — Following payment of an initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner’s account. The prison having custody of the prisoner shall deduct payments from the prisoner's account when the prisoner's account balance exceeds $ 10 until the filing fees are paid in full. The prison shall forward to the prothonotary the deducted payments upon deduction, on a monthly basis, or upon complete payment of the full filing fee if the court so directs. The Department of Corrections and county prison systems shall develop written guidelines regarding the priority of payment, which shall be consistent with law.
. Judge Friedman, in her concurring and dissenting opinion, states that the necessary implication that court filing fees are part of the budgetary process are within the purview of the General Assembly necessarily means that our Supreme Court has usurped the function of the General Assembly when it promulgated Rule 240(f) allowing for a party to proceed in forma pauperis. What that position ignores is that Rule 240(f) is not a budgetary rule or, for that matter, one that flows from Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, but merely enforces the right that no citizen of this Commonwealth shall be denied access to the courts due to lack of financial resources to pay the costs of litigation. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 , 112 S.Ct. 1728 , 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Brady v. Ford, 451 Pa.Super. 363 , 679 A.2d 837 (1996). 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6602(a)-(c) do not impinge on the Supreme Court's right to prescribe general rules or Rule 240(f) because they merely recognize that all inmates are provided with all the necessities of life; if the inmate has money in his or her prison account to use to pay filing fees, filing fees should be charged. Non-inmate litigants are required to make the choice of spending their money on litigation and so should inmates when they have money in their accounts to pay costs. Moreover, not only does it not violate Rule 240(f), it is in accord with Rule 240(h), which requires a statement that the petitioner is "unable to obtain funds from anyone, including my family and associates, to pay the costs of litigation.” If an inmate has the funds in his prison account, then he cannot make that statement and is not entitled to in forma pau-peris status.
. In 1995, Congress passed the federal Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), the provisions of which numerous states have followed in enacting their own Prisoner Litigation Reform acts. The constitutionality of the federal Act has been challenged and upheld on numerous occasions. See Singleton v. Smith, 241 F.3d 534 (6th Cir.2001); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir.1999); Murray v. Dosal, 150 F.3d 814 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070 , 119 S.Ct. 1467 , 143 L.Ed.2d 551 (1999); Nicholas v. Tucker, 114 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1126 , 118 S.Ct. 1812 , 140 L.Ed.2d 950 (1998). Also, numerous states have upheld similar provisions. See Gomez v. Evangelista, 290 A.D.2d 351 , 736 N.Y.S.2d 365 (2002); Longval v. Superior Court Department of Trial Court, 434 Mass. 718 , 752 N.E.2d 674 (2001); Brandon v. Corrections Corp. of America, 28 P.3d 269 (Alaska 2001); State ex rel. Adell v. Smith, 247 Wis.2d 260 , 633 N.W.2d 231 (Wis.App.2001); Harris v. Munoz, 6 S.W.3d 398 (Mo.App.W.D.1999).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748333. Public record. Not legal advice.