IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 15-cv-0884-WJM-NRN ALTON DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REGARDING COMMISSARY ACCOUNT This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Alton Davis’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion In Regards to The BOPs Aggressive Disbursement of Funds From Plaintiffs Commissary Account” dated April 16, 2019, and docketed with this Court on April 25, 2019. (ECF

No. 316.) Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) responded to the Motion on October 25, 2019. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is denied. Plaintiff alleges that BOP disbursed from his commissary account $14.00 that he had already paid for the filing fee in this action. (Id. at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff contends, he paid an extra $14.00. He also claims that BOP disbursed 40% of his monthly funds in March 2019, in violation of

. Finally, he argues that BOP is not correctly logging disbursements from his account. In its Response, BOP addresses each issue raised by Plaintiff. BOP explains that the $14.00 payment about which Plaintiff is concerned was subsequently voided. BOP also provides a detailed accounting showing the $14.00 payment on April 9, 2018 was voided on April 11, 2018, as well as the $14.00 “outside” payment recorded on June 28, 2018. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff did not pay an extra $14.00. (ECF No. 325 at 2–3; ECF No. 325-1 at 24–25.) As for deducting 40% of monthly funds in March 2019, § 1915 allows 20% of the prisoner’s account income from the preceding month to be deducted to pay filing fees.

(b)(2)(B). The Supreme Court clarified that when a prisoner has multiple filing-fee obligations, “simultaneous, not sequential, recoupment of multiple filing fees” is appropriate. Bruce v. Samuels,

(2016). In March 2019, Plaintiff had filing-fee obligations to this Court for the instant matter, as well as to the Tenth Circuit for the filing fee incurred appealing a district court judgment. Therefore, BOP appropriately deducted 20% per case in March 2019, for a total of 40%. See

Finally, Plaintiff claims that certain payroll funds were not appropriately logged, but does not clarify what the alleged discrepancies actually are. (ECF No. 316 at 2.)

Moreover, Kelee Dell, the BOP employee charged with supervising trust funds, has certified that all records and logs kept by her department are accurate and complete to the best of her knowledge. (ECF No. 325-1 at 8.) On the record before the Court, the Court determines that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

2 Dated this day of November, 2019. BYAHE/COURT: William J-Wartinez United States District Judge