Rogers v. Congress of U.S.

Full title: Michael Ray ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONGRESS OF the UNITED STATES…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 21, 2001

17 F. App'x 524 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

17 Fed.Appx. 524 (9th Cir. 2001) Michael Ray ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONGRESS OF the UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-16931. D.C. No. CV-97-02022-FCD. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 21, 2001

Submitted June 11, 2001. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

State prisoner brought civil rights action against the United States Congress. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Frank C. Damrell, Jr., J., dismissed the action. Prisoner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that Congress did not violate separation of powers by enacting the requirement, in Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), that prison staff assess and collect prisoners' district court filing fees in installments.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.

Before O'SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Michael Ray Rogers, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, his civil rights action alleging that the United States Congress violated the separation of powers doctrine by requiring prison staff to assess and collect prisoners' district court filing fees in installments pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

Page 525.

review de novo, Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 623 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

Because the PLRA's filing fee requirement is a procedural rule that does not infringe on the authority of the courts, the district court did not err by dismissing Rogers' action. Cf. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1182 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that the PLRA's "three strikes" rule is a procedural rule that does not violate the separation of powers doctrine).

Rogers' contention that this court erred by not ordering prison authorities to produce his legal materials is construed as a motion for reconsideration of this court's November 19, 1999, order denying injunctive relief. So construed, the motion is denied.

AFFIRMED.