Opinions and documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JUAN D. THOMAS, JR., 4:25-CV-04153-CCT
Plaintiff,
vs.
ZACHARY RUNGE, Correctional Officer
at South Dakota State Penitentiary, in
his individual capacity; ISSAC BOYER,
Correctional Officer at South Dakota ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
State Penitentiary, in his individual MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
capacity; KAILEY BRUNZ, Correctional IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
Officer at South Dakota State REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY AN
Penitentiary, in her individual capacity; INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE
DR. AARON HAYNES, Medical Director
at South Dakota Department of
Corrections, in his individual capacity;
DESIRAE KUMMER, Medical Charge
Nurse at South Dakota State
Penitentiary, in her individual capacity;
STEPHANIE RAMSDELL, Housing
Sergeant at South Dakota State
Penitentiary, in her individual capacity;
MICHAEL BIGGINS, Senior Correctional
Officer at South Dakota State
Penitentiary, in his individual capacity;
JOSEPH ROEMMICH, Warden at South
Dakota State Penitentiary, in his
individual and official capacity; and
KELLIE WASKO, Secretary of
Corrections at South Dakota
Department of Corrections, in her
individual and official capacity,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Juan D. Thomas, Jr., an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit. Docket 1. Thomas moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted a copy of his prisoner trust
account report. Dockets 2, 3.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner who “brings a civil
action or files an appeal in forma pauperis . . . shall be required to pay the full
amount of a filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The court may, however, accept
partial payment of the initial filing fee where appropriate. Thus, “[w]hen 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.” Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 483 (8th Cir. 1997) (per
curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601,
604 (6th Cir. 1997)).
The initial partial filing fee that accompanies an installment plan is
calculated according to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b)(1), which requires a payment of 20
percent of the greater of:
(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account; or
(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner=s account for the 6-
month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or
notice of appeal.
Thomas reports an average monthly deposit of $136.57 and an average
monthly balance of $718.08. Docket 3 at 1. Based on the information regarding
Thomas’ prisoner trust account, the court grants Thomas leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, but he must pay an initial partial filing fee of $143.62 (20
percent of his average monthly balance). Thomas must pay the initial partial
filing fee of $143.62 by September 13, 2025. Failure to pay the initial partial
filing fee by September 13, 2025, will result in dismissal without prejudice of
Thomas’ complaint for failure to prosecute.
Thus, it is ORDERED:
1. That Thomas’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket 2)
is granted. Thomas must make a payment of $143.62 by September
13, 2025, made payable to the Clerk, U.S. District Court. If Thomas does
not pay the initial partial filing fee by September 13, 2025, his complaint
will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
2. That the Clerk of Court will send a copy of this order to the appropriate
financial official at Thomas’ institution.
3. That the institution having custody of Thomas is directed that whenever
the amount in Thomas’ trust account, exclusive of funds available to him
in his frozen account, exceeds $10.00, monthly payments that equal 20
percent of the funds credited the preceding month to Thomas’ trust
account shall be forwarded to the U.S. District Court Clerk’s Office under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) until the $350 filing fee is paid in full.
Dated August 19, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Camela C. Theeler
CAMELA C. THEELER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.