SCHOLEFIELD v. RIVERVIEW PHYCIATRIC CENTER
Filing
5
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARGARET J. KRAVCHUK. (CWP)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ALAN RAYMOND SCHOLEFIELD, Plaintiff v. RIVERVIEW PHYCIATRIC CENTER, Defendants ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 08-391-B-W ) ) ) )
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff, an inmate at the Penobscot County Jail, Bangor, Maine, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Application to proceed in forma pauperis has been completed and is accompanied by a Certificate signed by an authorized individual from the Institution. The Certificate evidences that the applicant has $1.08 in his account as of November 13, 2008; that over the last six months the average deposits have been $148.33 and the average monthly balance has been $148.33. The application is GRANTED, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to pay the entire filing fee in this matter as funds become available. An initial partial filing fee is hereby ASSESSED in the amount of $29.67. In the event Plaintiff elects to proceed with this matter and so notifies the Court, the initial partial filing fee shall be forwarded by the institution as soon as funds are available. Subsequent payments of twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff's prior monthly income shall be forwarded directly by the institution each time the amount in the inmate's account exceeds $10.00 until such time as the entire filing fee of $350.00 has been paid. Plaintiff is advised that, in the event he is released
from incarceration prior to the filing fee of $350.00 being paid in full, he is still required to pay the entire filing fee, absent further order of the court relieving him of the obligation. In addition, Plaintiff is hereby on notice that the Court may dismiss this action if it: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the Court does dismiss the action under this section, Plaintiff will still be required to pay the filing fee in full. Further, Plaintiff is hereby on notice that a prisoner with three in forma pauperis actions dismissed under section 1915(e) may not thereafter, absent "imminent danger of serious physical injury," file a new action without prepayment of the entire filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Before Scholefield decides to shoulder the cost of pursuing this suit, he should consider that the State of Maine and its agencies are immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 damage suits by dint of the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) ("There can be no doubt, however, that suit against the State and its Board of Corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, unless Alabama has consented to the filing of such a suit."). Scholefield's only named defendant is the Riverview Psychiatric Center which is apparently an agency of the State of Maine. Now therefore, Plaintiff shall notify the Court no later than December 16, 2008, whether he intends to incur the cost of the filing fee and proceed with this action, or whether he intends to forego this litigation at this time. If Plaintiff elects to proceed, the written notification shall clearly indicate that Plaintiff understands his obligation to pay the full $350 filing fee as funds are available, and that he nevertheless wishes to proceed with the action. Failure to fully comply with this Order will result in the issuance of a recommendation to dismiss the Complaint. A
copy of this Order shall be forwarded to the Business Office of Penobscot County Jail, Bangor, Maine, following Plaintiff's indication to the Court that he intends to go forward with this matter and incur the $350.00 cost of suit. SO ORDERED. November 17, 2008 /s/ Margaret J. Kravchuk U.S. Magistrate Judge
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
