Question Presented

Questions Presented. ; , Question One Should the Oregon Department of Corrections, the U.S. District Court of Oregon, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, be allowed to collect 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) in forma pauperis (IFP) filing fees debts from Plaintiff on a “per case” basis, following a new interpretation of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S.Ct. 627, 577 U.S. 82, 193 L.Ed.2d 496 (2016) clarifying the statutory intent of that statute, when at the time these contractual debts were : agreed to by Plaintiff and those parties it was the applicable method and expectations of all parties | for those collections to occur in a “sequential” manner? Question two Is it the United States Supreme Court's intention of the clarifying holding in Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S.Ct. 627, 577 U.S. 82, 193 L.Ed.2d 496 (2016), that in forma pauperis fees céllections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) be coflected on a “per case” basis be applied ‘ retroactively in all cases, or that such new interpretation must be applied “prospectively” from the time concerned parties receive fair notice of the new interpretation to the statute? . ol