Williams v. Raynor Rensch & Pfieffer et al, No. 8:2011cv00446 - Document 116 (D. Neb. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on the Plaintiff's untimely Notice of Appeal of Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment 89 . Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal of the Court's March 29, 2012, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment is untimely. The Clerk of the court shall not process this Notice of Appeal. With regard to plaintiffs Notice of Appeal of the Courts December 14, 2012, Memorandum and Order, plaintiff shall have until March 8, 2013, to either submit the $455.00 appellate filing fee or a motion to proceed IFP, with the required affidavit. If plaintiff takes no action, his appeal will not be processed. Plaintiff is reminded that the Prison Litigation Reform Act makes the prisoner liable for payment of the full $45 5.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The clerk of the court shall not process plaintiffs Notice of Appeal of the Courts December 14, 2012, Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 91 ), until further order of the Court. The clerk of the court is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the parties and to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed)(MKR)
Download PDF
Williams v. Raynor Rensch & Pfieffer et al Doc. 116 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA SHANNON WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) REYNOR RENSCH & PFIEFFER, ) TERRY HADDOCK, JOHN STUCK, ) JOHN BRAZDA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________) 8:11CV446 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s untimely Notice of Appeal of the Court’s March 29, 2012, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment (Filing No. 89). This Notice of Appeal is untimely because it was filed more than 10 months after the Court’s Judgment. (See Filing Nos. 59 and 89.) Also pending is plaintiff’s timely filed Notice of Appeal of the Court’s December 14, 2012, Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 91.) However, plaintiff did not submit the $455.00 appellate filing fee, nor did he submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (See Filing No. 98.) Plaintiff was not previously given leave to proceed IFP in the district court. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal of the Court’s March 29, 2012, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment (Filing No. 89) is untimely. The clerk of the court shall not process this Notice of Appeal. Dockets.Justia.com 2. With regard to plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal of the Court’s December 14, 2012, Memorandum and Order, plaintiff shall have until March 8, 2013, to either submit the $455.00 appellate filing fee or a motion to proceed IFP, with the required affidavit. If plaintiff takes no action, his appeal will not be processed. 3. Plaintiff is reminded that the Prison Litigation Reform Act makes the prisoner liable for payment of the full $455.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. An incarcerated civil appellant is required to pay the full amount of the $455.00 filing fee by making monthly payments to the Court, even if he is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). 4. The clerk of the court shall not process plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal of the Court’s December 14, 2012, Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 91), until further order of the Court. -2- 5. The clerk of the court is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the parties and to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. DATED this 11th day of February, 2013. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom ____________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court * This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. -3-