Johnson v. High Desert State Prison

Background

Topaz Johnson and Ian Henderson, both incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, sued with a third prisoner after they say officers forced them to stand for hours in filthy, cramped cages. The three sought to proceed without paying fees because they had no money. The District Court ordered them to file three separate lawsuits and pay the full $350 fee each. The Ninth Circuit reversed the separation but held that each prisoner still must pay the full filing fee. The petition asking the Supreme Court to review that fee rule was denied.

Reasoning

The central question was whether federal law allows very poor prisoners to split the single $350 filing fee when everyone else can split it. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent explains that the statutes work together to set one fee per case (§1914) and that a later provision (§1915(b)(3)) forbids collecting more than the statutory fee for starting a case. She argues that §1915(b)(1) only prevents waiving or reducing a prisoner’s fee, but does not let courts collect multiple $350 fees from co‑filers. She warns the appeals court’s reading forces the poorest prisoners to pay more than wealthier co‑plaintiffs and may increase duplicative suits.

Real world impact

The issue divides the federal appeals courts: several Circuits say prisoners cannot split fees while the Sixth permits splitting. The dissent notes many denials and that prisoners earn about $0.13–$1.30 per hour, making a $350 fee a heavy burden; an appeal can cost an additional $600. Because the Supreme Court declined review, the appeals court’s fee rule controls the parties here and similar cases for now.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor dissented from the denial of review, joined by Justice Jackson; Justice Kagan said she would have granted review.