From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Campbell v. Vazquez

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Aug 27, 2024
24-cv-10394 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2024)

Opinion

24-cv-10394

08-27-2024

DWIGHT A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. CLINTON VAZQUEZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 11, 12, 13)

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On February 16, 2024, Plaintiff Dwight A. Campbell, appearing pro se, filed this action against Defendants Clinton Vazquez, the Logan Township Police Department, and the United States Marshal Service. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) At the time he filed his Complaint, Campbell did not pay the required filing fee. Nor did he file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Instead, Campbell filed what he called a “Statement of Filing Fee” in which he said that he was previously granted in forma pauperis status in an unrelated 2022 state court case. (See Statement, ECF No. 2.)

On April 16, 2024, the Court issued an order (1) construing Campbell's “Statement of Filing Fee” as a request to proceed in forma pauperis, (2) denying that request, and (3) dismissing Campbell's Complaint without prejudice. (See Order, ECF No. 6.) The Court dismissed Campbell's Complaint for two reasons. First, he had not paid the filing fee or provided the Court any basis to conclude that he was indigent and was unable to pay the fee. Second, documents that the Court had sent to Campbell had returned to the Court as undeliverable, and the Court therefore dismissed his Complaint for failure to comply the Court's local rule to update his address. See E.D. Mich. Local Rule 11.2.

Now pending before the Court are three motions Campbell has filed: (1) a motion to serve the Defendants with the Complaint and to update his address (see Mot., ECF No. 11), (2) a second motion to serve the Defendants (see Mot., ECF No. 12), and (3) a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (see Mot., ECF No. 13).

The Court STRIKES all three motions from the record. As of April 16, 2024, Campbell's Complaint was dismissed and this case was closed. Even if Campbell has now complied with Local Rule 11.2 by providing the Court an updated, valid address, he still has not paid the required filing fee and/or completed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. And his case cannot move forward until he does so.

Accordingly, if Campbell wishes to proceed in this action he shall (1) pay the required filing fee or file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis and (2) file a motion to re-open these proceedings and set aside the Court's dismissal order. The Court will not consider any other filings by Campbell in this case until he complies with those requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on August 27, 2024, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan

Case Manager

(313) 234-5126


Summaries of

Campbell v. Vazquez

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Aug 27, 2024
24-cv-10394 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2024)
Case details for

Campbell v. Vazquez

Case Details

Full title:DWIGHT A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. CLINTON VAZQUEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Aug 27, 2024

Citations

24-cv-10394 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2024)