Of all IFP applicants, incarcerated litigants face the highest procedural and practical hurdles. Largely in conformity with federal restrictions on prisoner IFP applications,1 Louisiana’s Prison Litigation Reform Act effectively denies prisoners the privilege to proceed in litigation without payment of court costs.2 Put simply, a prisoner can receive on-the-books IFP status but is still assessed court fees, which the court receives through “an initial partial filing fee of twenty percent of the greater of the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account, or the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition, notice of appeal, or writ application.”3 The incarcerated IFP applicant must file the same materials as all other applicants with the exception of a third-party affidavit. Additionally, the incarcerated applicant must “submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement or institutional equivalent for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing . . . .”4 While the court considers the IFP application, the action is stayed; during this time, any additionally accrued fees will prolong the stay “until all such additional costs are paid” by the prisoner.5 Further, even after an IFP application is granted, the stay remains “until all costs of court or fees due the clerk by the prisoner in this matter are paid.”6 If all costs are not paid by the prisoner within three years, Louisiana courts will dismiss the action without prejudice.7 If a court determines a suit was filed for a malicious purpose, “the court may order the revocation of such earned good time credit that has not yet been vested . . . .”8
The apparent harshness of Prison Litigation Reform Act is mollified slightly by its scope. It covers civil actions alone, and the automatic stay does not apply in cases seeking post-conviction relief, appealing parole determinations, seeking review of Department of Public Safety and Corrections decisions, asserting constitutional right violations, or requesting injunctive relief due to “imminent danger of serious physical injury . . . .”9
Courts look to policy considerations to justify the apparent IFP contradictions. IFP restrictions on inmate applicants, the legislation asserts, help the justice system avoid repeat frivolous, malicious, and groundless suits.10 Attentive to that legislative intent, Louisiana courts have determined that the restrictions do not violate the constitutionally protected rights of court access,11 equal protection,12 or due process.13
Links to forms for the affidavits for use in district court and on appeal are found Section 15.
- 128 U.S.C. § 1915.
- 2La. R.S. 15:1186–91.
- 3La. R.S. 15:1186(A)(2).
- 4La. R.S. 15:1186(A)(1).
- 5La. R.S. 15:1186(B)(2)(a).
- 6Id.
- 7La. R.S. 15:1186(B)(2)(c).
- 8La. R.S. 15:1190.
- 9La. R.S. 15:1186(B)(2)(d).
- 10La. R.S. 15:1187. In Rhone v. Ward, when describing the “legitimate state interest,” the court noted, “An indigent prisoner—who knows that his or her lawsuit may be deemed abandoned and dismissed for failure to pay costs—may be persuaded to weigh the costs of litigation prior to filing a civil lawsuit.” 45,008, p. 6 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/3/10), 31 So. 3d 591, 595.
- 11Rhone, 45,008, p. 6, 31 So. 3d at 595 (“[A] prisoner’s right to sue for civil damages does not involve a fundamental constitutional right.”).
- 12Id. (“Neither indigents nor prisoners are suspect classes for equal protection purposes. Additionally, an inmate does not have a fundamental right to file a cost-free suit for damages.”).
- 13Vincent v. Creed, 38,120, p. 5 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/30/05), 917 So. 2d 1289, 1292.