Jones v. Wayne, County of, No. 2:2008cv12415 - Document 7 (E.D. Mich. 2008)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER For Summary Dismissal Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TERRY L. JONES, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 08-12415 Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds Wayne County, et. al., Defendants. _____________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL On June 6, 2008, Plaintiff Terry L. Jones filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was assigned to this Court. Plaintiff also filed a second civil rights complaint on the same day, which was assigned to Judge Denise Page Hood. The cases were consolidated on June 20, 2008, and assigned to this Court. However, because Plaintiff failed to file the appropriate filing fee and the required number of copies of his Complaint with the Court, subsequently, on June 26, 2008, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an Order directing Plaintiff to (1) pay the necessary $350.00 filing fee or to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and, (2) provide two additional copies of his Complaint, in order to effect proper service upon Defendants. In that Order, the Court requested that Plaintiff comply with its Order within thirty days. To date, Plaintiff has not complied. For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is therefore dismissed with prejudice. I. First, regarding Plaintiff s failure to pay the required filing fee, the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) states that if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(as amended). See also In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138 (6th Cir. 1997). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), does provide prisoners the opportunity to make a down[-]payment of a partial filing fee and pay the remainder in installments. See Miller v. Campbell, 108 F.Supp.2d 960, 962 (W.D. Tenn. 2000). Under the PLRA, a prisoner may bring a civil action in forma pauperis if he files an affidavit of indigence and a certified copy of the trust-fund-account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). If the inmate does not pay the full filing fee and fails to provide the required documents, the district court must notify the prisoner of the deficiency and grant him thirty days to correct it or pay the full fee. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir.1997). If the prisoner does not comply, the district court must presume that the prisoner is not a pauper, assess the inmate the full fee, and order the case dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. Against that backdrop, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint for want of prosecution, because of Plaintiff s failure to comply with Magistrate Judge Whalen s deficiency Order; failing to timely pay the filing fee or to provide the requested documentation needed to proceed in forma pauperis. See Erby v. Kula, 113 Fed.Appx. 74, 75-76 (6th Cir. 2004); Davis v. United States, 73 Fed.Appx. 804, 805 (6th Cir. 2003). Second, regarding Plaintiff s failure to provide the Court with the necessary copies to effectuate service upon Defendants, an inmate bringing a civil rights complaint must specifically identify each defendant against whom relief is sought, and must give each defendant notice of the action by serving upon him or her a summons and copy of the complaint. Feliciano v. DuBois, 846 F.Supp. 1033, 1048 (D. Mass. 1994). Where a plaintiff is proceeding in forma -2- pauperis, the district court must bear the responsibility for issuing the plaintiff s process to a United States Marshal s Office, who must effect service upon the defendants once the plaintiff has properly identified the defendants in the complaint. Williams v. McLemore, 10 Fed.Appx. 241, 243 (6th Cir. 2001); Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996); Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with Magistrate Whalen s Order regarding this issue Plaintiff s has failed to provide the Court with the necessary copies of his Complaint in order to effectuate service upon Defendants. The Court therefore will dismiss the Complaint for want of prosecution. See Erby v. Kula, 113 Fed.Appx. 74, 75-76 (6th Cir. 2004); Davis v. United States, 73 Fed. Appx. 804, 805 (6th Cir. 2003). II. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff s Complaint IS DISMISSED for failure to comply with the filing requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Because the case is being dismissed under these circumstances, the Court further ORDERS that it is not to be reinstated to the district court s active docket despite the subsequent payment of filing fees. McGore, 114 F.3d at 605. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff s complaint is DISMISSED for failure to provide the Court with the required number of copies in order to effectuate service upon Defendants. s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge -3- Dated: September 18, 2008 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on September 18, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Carol A. Hemeyer Case Manager -4-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
