Arden Pawneeleggins v. Jared, No. 19-2776 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Benton, Wollman, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Prisoner Case - civil rights. Dismissal of prisoner civil rights action for failure to pay an initial partial filing fee was an abuse of discretion because the failure to pay was due to a lack of available funds. Judgment is vacated and case is remanded. [ October 30, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2776 ___________________________ Arden Pawneeleggins lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Jared, Kitchen Boss, Mike Durfee State Prison lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls ____________ Submitted: October 24, 2019 Filed: October 31, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. South Dakota inmate Arden Pawneeleggins appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with a court order to pay an initial partial filing fee. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. This court concludes that the dismissal of Pawneeleggins’s action was an abuse of discretion because—based on his certified inmate account statements—it appears that his failure to make an initial partial payment on time was due to a lack of available funds. See Boyle v. Am. Auto. Serv., Inc., 571 F.3d 734, 742 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (stating that court shall collect initial partial filing fee “when funds exist”), (b)(4) (providing that prisoner shall not be prohibited from bringing civil action because he lacks assets and means to pay initial partial filing fee); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2002) (for prisoners whose prior account balances resulted in assessment of initial fee, but who do not have funds available when payment is ordered, § 1915(b)(4) should protect them from having their cases dismissed for non-payment). The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
