Coleman v. Walker

Full title: GEORGE ANDERSON COLEMAN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. SHANNON WALKER, Defendant

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

Date published: Nov 2, 2005

Case No. 05-CV-72834-DT (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2005)

Opinion

Case No. 05-CV-72834-DT.

November 2, 2005

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

AVERN COHN, District Judge

Plaintiff is a state inmate currently confined at the Marquette Branch Prison in Marquette, Michigan. On September 9, 2005, a magistrate judge entered an order of deficiency, which required plaintiff to provide a signed certification of his prison trust account from an authorized jail official and a current computerized trust fund account showing the history of the financial transactions in plaintiff's institutional trust fund account for the past six months. Alternatively, the magistrate judge allowed plaintiff to pay the two hundred and fifty ($250.00) dollar filing fee in full. Plaintiff was given thirty days to comply with the order. To date, plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee in full or supplied this Court with the requested information.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) requires a prisoner who wishes to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs in a civil case in federal court to file a certified copy of the trust fund account statement for that prisoner for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.

If an inmate who does not pay the full filing fee fails to provide an affidavit of indigency or a certified trust account statement, the district court must notify the prisoner of the deficiency and the prisoner will then have thirty days from the date of the deficiency order to correct the error or to pay the full filing fee. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 605 (6^th Cir. 1997). If the inmate fails to comply with the district court's directions, "[t]he district court must presume that the prisoner is not a pauper and assess the inmate the full amount of fees." Id. The district court must then order that the case be dismissed for want of prosecution. Id.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (b)(1) and (2) for failure to comply with the filing requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

SO ORDERED