Opinion
5:24-cv-00105-MTT-CHW
05-22-2024
CHARLIE LAMONTE MCKINNEY, JR., Plaintiff, v. TYRONE OLIVER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CHARLES H. WEIGLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Charlie Lamonte McKinney, Jr., a prisoner in Central State Prison in Macon, Georgia, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., ECF No. 1. Because the complaint was not on the proper form for prisoner § 1983 complaints, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint on the proper form if he wanted to proceed with this action. Order, ECF No. 3. Additionally, Plaintiff was ordered to either pay the $405.00 filing fee or file a proper and complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to take these actions and was cautioned that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this case.
More than fourteen days have now passed since that order was entered, and Plaintiff has not filed a recast complaint, paid the filing fee, moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise responded to the order.Therefore, Plaintiff is now ORDERED to RESPOND and SHOW CAUSE to the Court why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with the previous order. In addition to his response, Plaintiff must also submit a recast complaint and either pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as set forth in the previous order. Plaintiff shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this order to file his response. Plaintiff's failure to fully and timely comply with this order will likely result in the dismissal of this case.
As discussed below, Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend and to consolidate this case with another pending case. Mot. to Am., ECF No. 4. This motion was dated April 11, 2024, more than a week before the order to recast was entered, and does not address any of the issues identified in the order to recast.
Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend his complaint and to consolidate this case with his other pending case, McKinney v. Jester, Case No. 5:24-cv-103-TES-MSH. Mot. to Am., ECF No. 4. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to amend his complaint, this motion is DENIED AS MOOT because Plaintiff has already been ordered to amend his complaint on the proper form, as set forth in the order to recast. Insofar as Plaintiff is seeking to consolidate this case with his other pending case, the motion is DENIED AS PREMATURE, as Plaintiff has not yet resolved the filing fee issue or filed his recast complaint. Once Plaintiff has complied with these requirements, the Court may consider whether consolidation is appropriate.
There shall be no service in this case pending further order of the Court.
SO ORDERED.