Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Procedural orderFiled June 11, 2026

Block v. United States of America

Judge
John Tunheim
Docket
0:23-cv-00127
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2

Counsel of record
PLAINTIFF
Reg. No. 17028-273
Waylen Block
DEFENDANT
United States Attorney's Office
David W. Fuller

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.

Pro SeCivil ProcedureFee PetitionCriminal
In one sentence

In Block v. United States, Judge Tunheim denied prisoner Waylen Block's motion to stay or reduce his appellate filing fee payments, holding that federal law requires monthly installment payments of 20 percent of his prison account income.

Who this affects

Federal prisoners who wish to appeal court decisions and seek to delay, reduce, or have the Bureau of Prisons cover their court filing fees. This order reaffirms that the 20-percent-of-monthly-income installment requirement under federal law applies and cannot be stayed or modified by the court simply because a prisoner is pursuing an internal grievance process.

What happened

In Block v. United States (Civil No. 23-127), prisoner Waylen Block, representing himself, asked the court to either pause his appellate filing fee payments while he pursued a grievance process to have the Bureau of Prisons pay the fees, or to set a fixed monthly payment of $20 instead of the legally required amount.

The case reached this point after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sent the matter back to the district court to properly calculate and collect Block's appellate filing fees. After Block failed to submit required financial documentation, the court set an initial partial payment of $35.00 and ordered the remaining balance of a $605.00 total appellate filing fee to be paid in monthly installments.

Judge John R. Tunheim denied Block's motion, explaining that federal law — specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) — clearly requires prisoners to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the prior month's income credited to their prison account. The court found no legal basis to stay or reduce the payments as Block requested, and ordered that the installment payments must continue.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Block v. United States of America · No. 0:23-cv-00127
Judge
John Tunheim
Date
June 11, 2026

Background

Plaintiff Waylen Block, a federal prisoner housed at FMC Devens in Ayer, Massachusetts, is proceeding without a lawyer (pro se) in this civil matter against the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit previously remanded the case to the district court for proper calculation and collection of Block's appellate filing fees, by order dated December 2, 2025.

Prior Proceedings on the Fee Issue

Following the remand, the district court directed Block to submit financial documentation so the court could calculate the initial partial filing fee. The court warned that if Block did not comply, it would assess an initial partial fee of $35.00 under the Eighth Circuit's framework in Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484–85 (8th Cir. 1997). Block did not submit the required documentation by the deadline. As a result, the court imposed the $35.00 initial partial fee and ordered that the remaining balance of the statutory $605.00 appellate filing fee be paid by Block in installments, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), by order dated February 5, 2026.

Block's Motion

On June 2, 2026, Block filed a Motion to Set Scheduling Order or Waiver of Filing Fee (Docket No. 145), requesting either: (1) a stay of his fee payments while he pursued an internal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) grievance process in an effort to have the BOP pay the fees on his behalf; or (2) in the alternative, that the court fix his monthly payment at $20.

The Court's Ruling

Judge Tunheim denied Block's motion. The court relied on two grounds:

Statutory mandate

The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), the federal statute governing filing fees for prisoners proceeding under the in forma pauperis (fee-waiver) provisions. That statute requires prisoners to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to their prison account. The court found the statutory language clear and mandatory.

Congressional intent

The court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 85 (2016), which confirmed that Congress requires prisoners to pay filing fees for the suits or appeals they file. This underscored that the fee obligation is not discretionary.

The court found no legal basis to grant a stay pending a BOP grievance process or to fix the monthly payment at a flat $20 rather than the statutory 20-percent formula. Block's motion was denied in its entirety, and the court ordered that the remaining balance of the $605.00 appellate filing fee must continue to be paid in installments consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

Disposition

Block's Motion to Set Scheduling Order or Waiver of Filing Fee (Docket No. 145) was denied. The installment payment obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) remains in effect.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.