CHESTER P HAWKINS V GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CHESTER P. HAWKINS,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 186649
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 94-078871-CZ
GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Wahls and Gage, JJ.
GAGE, J. (dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
I would affirm Circuit Judge Thomas Brown’s order reinstating plaintiff’s filing fees. Like other
states and the federal government, Michigan expends significant sums defending lawsuits filed against it
by incarcerated plaintiffs.1 In response to the rising costs of defending prisoner lawsuits, the U.S.
Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act in 1996. 28 USC 1915. Under this legislation,
prisoners who file lawsuits in federal court while incarcerated “must now pay the required filing fees and
costs. When an inmate seeks pauper status, the only issue is whether the inmate pays the entire fee at
the initiation of the proceeding or over a period of time under an installment plan. Prisoners are no
longer entitled to a waiver of fees and costs.” In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F3d 1131 (6
CA, 1997). In our own state, the Legislature responded to the increased costs of prisoner litigation by
enacting MCL 600.2963; MSA 27A.2963, which went into effect June 1, 1997. Neither of these
statutes applies to the present case, of course, but I believe nonetheless that the circuit court did not err
in reinstating plaintiff’s filing fees.
The circuit court initially suspended the filing fee “to ensure [plaintiff] of a timely review of [his]
complaint.” The court’s original order stated that plaintiff’s fee “may be reinstated at the conclusion of
the case.” When Judge Brown granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition of plaintiff’s
complaint, he also reinstated plaintiff’s fee. Plaintiff appealed both actions. Pursuant to an order of this
Court affirming the grant of summary disposition to defendant but vacating the reinstatement of plaintiff’s
filing fee, and consistent with Martin v Dep’t of Corrections (On Remand), 201 Mich App 331; 505
-1
NW2d 915 (1993), Judge Brown had plaintiff transported back to his courtroom from Lakeland
Correctional Facility for an evidentiary hearing on plaintiff’s indigency status. After finding that plaintiff
was not indigent, Judge Brown again reinstated the $62 filing fee.
Under the provisions of MCR 2.002(G), the circuit court is allowed to reinstate the suspended
filing fees of an indigent party “when the reason for the waiver or suspension no longer exists.” The
circuit court suspended plaintiff’s filing fees to allow him access to the court to have his complaint timely
reviewed. Once that reason no longer existed, because plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed by grant of
summary disposition to the defendant, the court rule allowed the reinstatement of the filing fee.
Moreover, I believe that Judge Brown’s holding that plaintiff was not indigent, for purposes of
reinstating the filing fee, was not erroneous. As the record indicates, plaintiff’s prison account
statements consistently showed a balance of zero, although plaintiff regularly received $7 monthly
“loans” from the Department of Corrections. Plaintiff’s “room, board, medical expenses, dental
expenses, food, so forth” were all provided for him by the state, as Judge Brown noted, and there was
“no evidence that the Corrections Commission is interested in repayment.” Plaintiff had the option of
saving money from the $7 monthly deposits to his prison account to pay his own filing fees, either before
initiating the present civil action or after the reinstatement of the fees at the conclusion of the case.
I would affirm.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
1
For example, one writer has estimated that prisoner lawsuits accounted for fifteen percent of all civil
suits filed in the federal courts in 1993. The writer believes that the burden on state courts is even
higher. Dunn, Flood of Prisoner Rights Suits Brings Effort to Limit Filings, New York Times,
March 21, 1994, at A1, cited in DeWolf, Protecting the Courts from the Barrage of Frivolous
Prisoner Litigation: A Look at Judicial Remedies and Ohio’s Proposed Legislative Remedy, 57
Ohio St L J 257 (1996).
-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.
