Tyson v. Tanner et al, No. 2:2008cv04445 - Document 202 (E.D. La. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS denying pla's 185 Motion to Clarify Costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 11/4/2010. (rll, ) Modified on 11/5/2010 to edit doc type (rll, ).

Download PDF
Tyson v. Tanner et al Doc. 202 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ANTONIO TYSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 08-4445 ROBERT C. TANNER-WARDEN, JEFFERY TRAVIS-EX WARDEN, JAMES LEBLANCSECRETARY, RICHARD STALDER-EX SECRETARY, TIM CRAWFORD-MAJOR, WADE RIGDON-CAPTAIN SECTION “I”(4) ORDER AND REASONS The plaintiff, Antonio Tyson, filed a Motion to Clarify Costs (Rec. Doc. No. 185) in which he requests that the Court rescind its pauper order directing deductions from his prison account to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Tyson claims that he intended to file a habeas corpus action which required only a $5.00 filing fee. Tyson, a frequent filer in this Court,1 filed the captioned federal civil rights action on the form reserved for the filing of prisoner complaints pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 Along with his complaint, he submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, with the statement of account 1 The records of this Court indicate that Tyson has filed five prisoner civil rights suits under § 1983 and two habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Civ. Action No. 10-1174“C”(2), Civ. Action No. 10-1097“F” (6) (§ 2254), Civ. Action No. 10-335“F”(6) (§2254), Civ. Action No. 10-132“A”(1), Civ. Action No. 09-7619“S”(1), Civ. Action No. 08-4599“C”(1), Civ. Action No. 08-4445“I”(4). 2 Rec. Doc. No. 1. Dockets.Justia.com required for the filing of civil, non-habeas matters by a prisoner.3 After considering his motion, the Court ordered that prison officials make deductions from plaintiff’s prisoner account until the applicable $350.00 filing fee is paid in full pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996. These filings indicate that Tyson intended to file a civil rights complaint under § 1983. The Court further notes that the monetary and other relief sought in this case are not available through habeas corpus, which is reserved for non-monetary relief from a state judgment of conviction and sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Nevertheless, if Tyson wishes to voluntarily dismiss this case and pursue his rights under § 2254, he is free to do so. This, however, will not end the deductions for payment of the fee in this case. The record is clear that Tyson intended to file and pursue a civil rights case under § 1983 and not a habeas corpus petition. His frequent filings in this federal court would also tend to show that Tyson knew exactly what he was filing. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Antonio Tyson’s Motion to Clarify Costs (Rec. Doc. No. 185) is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of November, 2010 ____________________________________ KAREN WELLS ROBY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 Rec. Doc. No. 2. 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.