35. Property-prisoner personal.

U.S. Appeals Court DISPOSITION OF FUNDS

Atchison v. Collins, 288 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2002). An inmate filed a motion asking the federal court to compel a correction department to deduct no more than 20% of his monthly income to pay for filing fees incurred as the result of unsuccessful actions in federal court. The district court denied the motion and the appeals court affirmed. The department had been deducting 60 percent to pay for three filling fees on which the inmate owed money; the appeals court held that the twenty-percent-of-income payments provided for under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) must be calculated "per case" rather than "per prisoner." (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Eastham Unit)

U.S. Appeals Court INMATE FUNDS

In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2002). A state inmate petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent the U.S. District Court from further collections of money from his prison account for payment of a filing fee in his dismissed civil rights action. The appeals court denied the petition, finding that the dismissal of the suit under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did not obviate the requirement that he pay the district court filing fee. The court noted that under PLRA, pauper status for inmates no longer exists and all prisoners must pay the required filing fees and costs and are not entitled to a waiver. (U.S. District Court, Kentucky)

U.S. Appeals Court DISPOSITION OF FUNDS INMATE FUNDS VETERANS

Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683 (3rd Cir. 2002). A state inmate brought a pro se [section] 1983 action against prison officials and employees, alleging violation of his statutory and due process rights arising from seizure of money derived from his veteran's disability benefits check to pay a court-ordered fine without a predeprivation hearing. The district court dismissed the case. The appeals court vacated and remanded, finding that a federal statute that prohibits attachment, levy or seizure of a veteran's disability benefits provides a federal right that is enforceable under [section] 1983. The court also found that a state law that provided for the collection of a crime victims' assessment from the inmate's account was void to the extent that it allowed prison officials to deduct funds derived from the inmate's veteran's disability benefits. The court found that allegations supported a claim for a procedural due process violation. (ATDC, Avenel, New Jersey)