Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mark Molasky v. Tom Brown, George "Buzz" Westfall, George Brooks, and Richard Callahan, 85-2427 (1986)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 85-2427 Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 31, 1986
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 786 F.2d 1342 Mark MOLASKY, Appellant, v. Tom BROWN, George "Buzz" Westfall, George Brooks, and Richard Callahan, Appellees. No. 85-2427. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 2, 1985. Decided March 31, 1986. Mark Molasky, pro se. John J. Oldenburg, Jr., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellees. Before HEANEY, ARNOLD and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 Mark Molasky appeals from an order of the district court for the Western District of Missouri dismissing his civ
More

786 F.2d 1342

Mark MOLASKY, Appellant,
v.
Tom BROWN, George "Buzz" Westfall, George Brooks, and
Richard Callahan, Appellees.

No. 85-2427.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 2, 1985.
Decided March 31, 1986.

Mark Molasky, pro se.

John J. Oldenburg, Jr., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, ARNOLD and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Mark Molasky appeals from an order of the district court for the Western District of Missouri dismissing his civil rights action for failure to pay the first $20.00 installment of a $60.00 partial filing fee imposed as a condition for granting Molasky leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The propriety of the partial filing fee requirement presently used in the district courts for the Western District of Missouri has been analyzed and disapproved, in part, in an opinion we announced today, In Re: Jewell Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336 (8th Cir.1986). As the issue in this case is identical, we reverse and remand for a hearing and imposition of a fee, if justified, consistent with the standards set forth in Williamson.

2

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting.

3

For the reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Williamson, I would not apply the "First" standard to this case, which in effect would excuse Molasky from paying the partial fee simply because the district court had not adopted a local rule or an en banc order adopting this practice. As in Williamson, I would remand only for application of the remaining standards.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer