4. Assessment of costs.

U.S. Appeals Court PLRA-Prison Litigation Reform Act COURT COSTS

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 filing 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 COPAYMENT

Beerheide v. Suthers, 286 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2002). Three state prisoners who were Orthodox Jews brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials based on the officials' failure to provide them with free kosher meals. The district court granted a permanent injunction and the officials appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that failure to provide free kosher meals violated the First Amendment, and that a proposal under which the prisoners would be required to make a 25% co-payment for the cost of providing such meals was not rationally related to the legitimate penological concerns of cost and abuse. The court also found that the officials' alternative proposals that the prisoners buy their kosher meals at the prison canteen, or have the Jewish community provide the meals, were not reasonable. (Freemont Correctional Facility, Colorado)

U.S. Appeals Court DUE PROCESS FINES

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 1983. The...