Topaz Johnson v. High Desert State Prison; Ian Henderson v. High Desert State Prison

Johnson v. High Desert State Prison · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 24, 2025 · No. 23-15299; 23-15396

Summary

The Ninth Circuit denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in consolidated appeals involving whether multiple in forma pauperis prisoner-plaintiffs joining under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 must each pay the full filing fee under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Judge W. Fletcher, joined by Judge Graber, respectfully disagreed with the denial of rehearing en banc, arguing that the PLRA requires a single filing fee for a joint action and that the panel majority’s contrary interpretation was inconsistent with statutory text, legislative intent, Supreme Court authority, and practical considerations.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
W. Fletcher; Susan P. Graber; Consuelo M. Callahan; Lawrence VanDyke
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
July 24, 2025
Docket number
23-15299; 23-15396
Procedural posture
The court considered consolidated petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc following the panel's decision concerning filing fees owed by multiple in forma pauperis prisoner-plaintiffs proceeding jointly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.
Standard of review
Rehearing and rehearing en banc are governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40; rehearing en banc requires the requisite vote of the active, nonrecused judges.
Precedential value
Published; the order denying rehearing is precedential as to its procedural disposition, while the statement respecting denial of rehearing en banc is nonbinding.
Parties
Topaz Johnson, Ian Henderson v. High Desert State Prison, Sylva, Sergeant, Brian Kibler, Warden
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedureprisoners rightsstatutory interpretationcivil rightscivil procedure

Practice areas

prisoner civil rightsfederal appellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether panel rehearing should be granted.
  2. Whether rehearing en banc should be granted where the petition failed to receive a majority vote of the nonrecused active judges.
  3. Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires each in forma pauperis prisoner-plaintiff in a joint Rule 20 action to pay a separate $350 filing fee.

Holdings

  1. The petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied.

Key quotations

The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. (at 3)
In short, because the plaintiffs are poor, they pay more. (at 4)
The natural combined reading of §§ 1914(a) and 1915(b) is that when multiple IFP prisoner-plaintiffs join in a single civil action under the PLRA, the total filing fee is $350. (at 6–7)
The PLRA is silent on the issue whether multiple IFP prisoner-plaintiffs joined under Rule 20 should each pay a filing fee of $350. (at 11)

Factual background

The underlying litigation involved prisoner-plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis and joining together under Rule 20 in a civil action. The underlying panel decision held that each prisoner-plaintiff owed a separate $350 filing fee under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. In the statement respecting denial of rehearing en banc, Judge W. Fletcher argued that the statute instead requires only one $350 filing fee for the single joint action.

Procedural history

The Ninth Circuit panel held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires each prisoner-plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis in a joint Rule 20 action to pay the full $350 filing fee. The plaintiffs petitioned for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The panel denied rehearing, and the en banc petition failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…