Case Citator › John Whitfield v. Charles Scully, Former Supt. Gail Haponik C.O. Tornabene C.O. C. Mitchell John and Jane Does

John Whitfield v. Charles Scully, Former Supt. Gail Haponik C.O. Tornabene C.O. C. Mitchell John and Jane Does

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
241 F.3d 264
Decided
Confirmed treatments
5
Flagged citations read
57 of 57
Citing cases (total)
57
Treatment dates
2002–2016
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. The Supreme Court rejected John Whitfield v. Charles Scully's rule that prisoners pay monthly filing fees for separate lawsuits one at a time, capped at 20 percent of monthly income. Its decision in Bruce v. Samuels requires simultaneous 20 percent payments for each case.
More on how this was screened

Whitfield's separate rule for collecting cost awards was not before the Supreme Court. All 57 flagged citations have been read, and the five confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

57 later cases cite John Whitfield v. Charles Scully, Former Supt. Gail Haponik C.O. Tornabene C.O. C. Mitchell John and Jane Does; 57 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on John Whitfield v. Charles Scully, Former Supt. Gail Haponik C.O. Tornabene C.O. C. Mitchell John and Jane Does?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Whitfield's per-prisoner approach to monthly filing fees for separate actions and required simultaneous payments of 20 percent for each action.

    Bruce v. Samuels · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    (adopting per-case approach), with Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F. 3d 264, 276–277 (CA2 2001); Siluk v. Merwin, 783 F. 3d 421, 427–436 (CA3 2015); and Torres v. O’Quinn, 612 F. 3d 237, 241–248 (CA4 2010) (adopting per-prisoner approach). ... The Circuits following the per-case approach, we conclude, better comprehend the statute.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Fifth Circuit rejected Whitfield's per-prisoner reading of monthly filing-fee payments and adopted a payment of 20 percent for each case.

    Atchison v. Collins · Fifth Circuit · filed

    Second Circuit adopted the “per prisoner” approach in Whitfield v. Scully, ... The “per case” interpretation is mandated by the unambiguous meaning of the text of § 1915.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Southern District of California declined Whitfield's sequential filing-fee rule for separate lawsuits and required a monthly payment for each suit.

    Hendon v. Ramsey · S.D. Cal. · filed

    The Second Circuit has held that § 1915(b)(2) requires that filing fees be collected sequentially, meaning an indigent prisoner can be assessed no more than 20 percent of his monthly income, regardless of the number of lawsuits filed. ... See Whitfield, 241 F.3d at 277. ... The Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit’s analysis in Atchison and finds that the language of the statute lends itself to a reading that 20 percent of Plaintiffs monthly income must be deducted for each suit Plaintiff has filed.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The District of Columbia district court declined Whitfield's aggregate cap on monthly filing fees in separate actions and applied the 20 percent rule per case.

    D’Alfonso v. Holder · D.D.C. · filed

    this Court has taken the position adopted by the majority of the circuit courts of appeal that have addressed the question, and has determined that the statute’s 20 percent rule applies per case filed, not per prisoner. ... but see Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264, 277 (2d Cir. 2001) (inferring a 20 percent cap that “requires the recoupment of multiple encumbrances in sequential fashion at a constant rate of 20 percent of monthly receipts to the prisoner’s account”).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The D.C. Circuit declined Whitfield's per-prisoner cap on filing fees owed in multiple cases and adopted a per-case rule.

    Pinson v. Samuels · D.C. Circuit · filed

    The Second and Fourth Circuits interpret § 1915(b) to cap the monthly exaction of fees at twenty percent of a prisoner’s monthly income, regardless of the number of cases for which he owes filing fees. Torres v. O’Quinn, 612 F.3d 237, 252 (4th Cir. 2010); Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264, 277 (2d Cir. 2001). ... Considering the issue afresh, we conclude that the per-case approach adopted by the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits is the better understanding of the statute.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads John Whitfield v. Charles Scully, Former Supt. Gail Haponik C.O. Tornabene C.O. C. Mitchell John and Jane Does and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace