Khalid Alexander v. Carson Adult High School Jim Padgett, Executive Officer Karen Owen

Good Law
9 F.3d 1448·93 Daily Journal DAR 14935·1993 WL 485272·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 30947·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8724
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 26, 199393-15522California508 words

Opinion

Opinion

Skopil, J.

Khalid Alexander appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action for failure to pay a five dollar partial filing fee. We review the district court’s decision to impose a partial fee pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , for an abuse of discretion. See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990). Although “[district courts enjoy wide discretion in deciding whether a partial fee is fair and appropriate in a particular case,” Johnson v. Kemp, 781 F.2d 1570, 1571 (11th Cir.1986) (finding abuse of discretion), that discretion is not unbridled. In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 967 (2d Cir.1989) (no discretion to deprive litigants of their last dollar); In re Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336, 1340 (8th Cir.1986); Green v. Estelle, 649 F.2d 298, 302 (5th Cir.1981).

The Nevada District Court has initiated a partial filing fee for prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis based on either the value of their assets, or their average income over the past six months, whichever is greater. Alexander had twenty-nine cents in his account when he filed his ease, but had an average income over the past six months of $27.67. The district court required him to pay a five dollar…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.