From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. Orleans Hotel & Casino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Mar 13, 2013
Case No. 2:12-cv-01683-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Mar. 13, 2013)

Summary

noting the Sixth Amendment is strictly limited to the criminal context

Summary of this case from Terwilleger v. Washington

Opinion

Case No. 2:12-cv-01683-JCM-CWH

03-13-2013

BRENT MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. THE ORLEANS HOTEL AND CASINO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1), filed September 24, 2012. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. It appears Plaintiff is incarcerated. His application was to proceed in Forma Pauperis was submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2) and Local Rules for Special Proceedings and Appeals ("LSR") 1-1 and 1-2.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action in federal district court. The court may only authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement showing the person is unable to pay such costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also LSR 1-1 and 1-2. Because Plaintiff is incarcerated, the Court may waive the filing fee only if the prisoner-plaintiff strictly complies with the in forma pauperis filing requirements imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000). These include the requirements that the prisoner-plaintiff seeking to proceed in forma pauperis 1) submit a certified copy of his prisoner trust fund account statement for the previous six months or, if incarcerated less than six months, the prisoner's account activity during the time of incarceration, 2) pay the full amount of the filing fee, and 3) if seeking to file an action regarding prison conditions first exhausts available administrative remedies, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(b); Page, 201 F.3d at 1139.

Here, Plaintiff's certified copy of his prisoner trust account includes the six months prior to July 2012. The application was filed in late September meaning there are two months of account activity which have not been disclosed. Under LSR 1-2 and section 1915, the trust account must include trust account activity and balances for the six months immediately proceeding application. Moreover, more than six months have passed since the last month included in the Plaintiff's submitted trust account information. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1) is denied without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, accompanied by a signed financial certificate and certified copy of his prisoner trust fund account for the previous six months if he is a prisoner. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a blank application form for pro se litigants who are incarcerated. In the alternative, Plaintiff shall make the necessary arrangements to pay the filing fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00), accompanied by a copy of this Order. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order is entered to comply. Failure to comply will result in a recommendation to the District Judge for dismissal of this action.

_______________

Carl W. Hoffman, Jr.

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Morris v. Orleans Hotel & Casino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Mar 13, 2013
Case No. 2:12-cv-01683-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Mar. 13, 2013)

noting the Sixth Amendment is strictly limited to the criminal context

Summary of this case from Terwilleger v. Washington
Case details for

Morris v. Orleans Hotel & Casino

Case Details

Full title:BRENT MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. THE ORLEANS HOTEL AND CASINO, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Mar 13, 2013

Citations

Case No. 2:12-cv-01683-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Mar. 13, 2013)

Citing Cases

Terwilleger v. Washington

As noted above, Plaintiff did not have a right to counsel, and indeed did not have counsel, for his civil…