Opinion
Civil Action 3:21-CV-1971
02-28-2022
H/HARRY HAMILTON, Plaintiff v. WALLER COUNTY TEXAS, et al., Defendants
MANNION, D.J.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
WILLIAM I. ARBUCKLE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
H/Harry Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) lodged a complaint in this Court. (Doc. 1).
After being afforded two opportunities to either file a motion on the proper form requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the civil filing fee, Plaintiff has failed to do so. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
(1) Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
(2) The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this case.
II. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In his complaint, Plaintiff identifies himself as a “corporate person” who identifies himself as “Harry Hamilton, ” “H, ” and “Black Horse.” (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that he is a former NFL player, and that he has been painted in a negative light by news media outlets in the past. Id. Plaintiff also reports that he is involved in CTE litigation with the NFL.
I infer from a letter attached to Plaintiff's complaint that Plaintiff was arrested in Waller County, Texas on or around November 18, 2019. (Doc. 1-1, p. 2). Plaintiff alleges that he was detained in a Waller County cell for between six and eight hours, and may have been charged with crimes under Texas Penal Code § 38.02 (failure to identify) and § 38.15 (interference with public duties). (Doc. 1-1, p. 3). Plaintiff alleges that he does:
not understand the charges because in addition to the first five to ten minutes of any video or audio (the point when I write the name Harry Hamilton or Harry E. Hamilton on the pad provided by the Trooper) several troopers entered the detention facility pulling up articles and involving about what a federal judge had ordered from Pennsylvania.(Doc. 1-1, p. 3).
On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff lodged a complaint in this court. (Doc. 1). As Defendants, Plaintiff names:
(1) Waller County Texas;
(2) Waller County Detention Facility;
(3) Waller County Detention Officials;
(4) Detaining Trooper and Supervisory Personnel;
(5) Waller County Law Enforcement Officers;
(6) Waller County Supervisory Personnel;
(7) John Does; and
(8) Benefitting ABC Corps.
It is not clear what claim Plaintiff is asserting, he does however cite to 42 U.S.C. § 12101, the findings and purpose section of the Americans with disabilities act (“ADA”) and reports that due to injuries sustained while he played in the NFL, he suffers from increasing mental impairments. (Doc. 1-1, p. 3, n. 2). Plaintiff also suggests in a footnote of the attached letter that his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. (Doc. 1-1, p. 2 n. 1).
As relief, Plaintiff requests:
declaratory relief (a) to turn over the audio visual tapes from all officers and jailers so that media may have access to show what many go through and that (b) the statute permitting for this treatment is unconstitutional, ie, the information demanded (c) the charges were unconstitutional as was the jailing, strip search, and fingerprinting and photographing to be placed into the system (perhaps as the former U.S. Attorney General had announced with so-called Black Identity Extremist memorandum), and (d) if necessary the opportunity to amend following the Court's grant of reasonable accommodation to ensure access to the federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act.(Doc. 1, p. 5).
Along with his complaint, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). On November 19, 2021, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's letter request, and directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on or before December 20, 2021. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff did not respond to the Court's order.
On December 29, 2021, the Court sent a second order directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on or before January 31, 2022. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff did not respond to the Court's order.
I note that on January 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a new case in this Court. Hamilton v. 113th Precinct Commanding Officer, 3:22-CV-101 (M.D. Pa.) Plaintiff paid the full civil filing fee in that case.
III. ANALYSIS
To date, Plaintiff has not submitted a properly completed application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis and has not paid the required filing fee. Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate where a litigant fails to file an appropriate motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. See Lindsey v. Roman, 408 Fed.Appx. 530, 532-22 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming a District Court's dismissal of a pro se litigant's complaint where the litigant did not pay the fee or submit the appropriate forms in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis); Parker v. Harrisburg City, No. 1:17-CV-653, 2017 WL 3015880, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 7, 2017) report and recommendation adopted by 2017 WL 3008583 (M.D. Pa. July 14, 2017).
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
(1) Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
(2) The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this case.
NOTICE OF LOCAL RULE 72.3
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.