Johnson v. High Desert State Prison

Johnson v. High Desert State Prison

What’s at Stake  

The case raises important questions about the impact prohibitive court filing fees have on the ability of people who are incarcerated to access the civil legal system. We are increasingly seeing court fees and other costs used to suppress people’s constitutional right to petition the courts. 

Summary  

This appeal arises from Appellants Topaz Johnson and Ian Henderson’s section 1983 action against officials at the High Desert State Prison in California, where correctional officers left them to stand in dirty, urine-covered two and a half foot by two and a half foot cages with their arms handcuffed behind their backs.  

When Mr. Johnson and Mr. Henderson filed their complaint, they filed an accompanying motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which allows litigants to proceed with a lesser-to-no filing fee if the court finds that the plaintiff is “unable to pay.” (28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).) Typically, the filing fee for commencing any civil action in federal district court is $350. (28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).) And when several individuals file suit jointly, the total required fee, $350, is split by the number of joined plaintiffs. But according to the Ninth Circuit, that fee-splitting rule does not apply to plaintiffs who are incarcerated. This is because the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) specifies that an incarcerated person who proceeds IFP “shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee” in installments. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

Core Legal Problem  

In this case, the district court interpreted the statute to mean that in a suit where two or more incarcerated plaintiffs file jointly, they must each pay the full $350. On appeal, the majority agreed, holding that the PLRA “contemplates a per-litigant approach.” In dissent, Judge Graber criticized the majority’s interpretation of the statute, saying that it “produces absurd results.” And in a denial of a request for rehearing en banc, in dissent, Judge Fletcher and Judge Graber called on the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.  

There are three other circuits—the Third, Seventh, and Eleventh—that agree with the Ninth. On the other side of the ledger, the Sixth Circuit has held that incarcerated plaintiffs who proceed IFP and file suit jointly may split their filing fee. The remaining circuits have not decided this issue.  

As Petitioners argue in their cert petition, the Supreme Court should take this case because there should not be a universe where the plaintiffs who can least afford to pay court fees must pay the highest amount simply because they are incarcerated.