Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Matthew Joseph Sikora, Jr., Appellant, v. Frank X. Hopkins, Warden, in his indi

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Sikora, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order applying the fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We construe Sikora's appeal from a non-final order as a petition for writ of mandamus.

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sustaining the memorandum and order of the Honorable David L. Piester, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.

Because Sikora was not granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) until May 13, 1996 — following the April 26, 1996 enactment of the PLRA — we find no error in the district court's application of the PLRA's fee provisions to Sikora, even though he submitted his complaint and IFP motion prior to the PLRA's effective date. Cf. Thurman v. Gramley, 97 F.3d 185, 188-89 (7th Cir. 1996) (appeal lodged prior to enactment of PLRA, but ineffective because appellant lacked IFP status, is not filed until IFP motion is decided).

Accordingly, Sikora's petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. We appreciate counsel's willingness to accept appointment in this matter and thank him for the services he has rendered.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SIKORA v. HOPKINS
(Mar 31, 1997)