Opinion
3:24-cv-00686
08-05-2024
MICHELLE SHOEMAKER, #386705, Plaintiff, v. AMBER L. PHILLIPS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ELI RICHARDSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
By Order entered June 21, 2024 (Doc. No. 5), the Court gave notice to pro se Plaintiff Michelle Shoemaker that her original application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) was deficient inasmuch as it lacked a signature page. The Court directed the Clerk to provide Plaintiff with a new IFP application form and ordered Plaintiff to cure the signature-page defect within 30 days. (Id.)
On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a new IFP application as directed. (Doc. No. 6.) That application, combined with the supporting financial documentation already on record (see Doc. No. 2 at 2-9), establishes that Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the entire filing fee in advance. Accordingly, Plaintiff's new IFP application (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED and a $350 filing fee is ASSESSED. The fee will be collected in installments as described below.
The warden of the facility in which Plaintiff is currently housed, as custodian of her trust account, is DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk of Court, as an initial payment, the greater of: (a) 20% of the average monthly deposits to Plaintiff's credit at the jail; or (b) 20% of the average monthly balance to Plaintiff's credit for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Thereafter, the custodian shall submit 20% of Plaintiff's preceding monthly income (or income credited to Plaintiff for the preceding month), but only when the balance in her account exceeds $10. Id. § 1915(b)(2). Payments shall continue until the $350 filing fee has been paid in full to the Clerk of Court. Id. § 1915(b)(3).
The Clerk of Court MUST send a copy of this Order to the warden of the facility in which Plaintiff is currently housed to ensure compliance with that portion of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 pertaining to the payment of the filing fee. If Plaintiff is transferred from her present place of confinement, the custodian must ensure that a copy of this Order follows Plaintiff to her new place of confinement, for continued compliance with the Order. All payments made pursuant to this Order must be submitted to the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, 719 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37203.
As the Court has ordered previously in this series of sentencing-related cases that utilize a nearly identical complaint, see, e.g., Cartwright v. Phillips, et al., No. 3:23-cv-00670, the instant case will be stayed pending the resolution of related issues in the case of Ricky Harris v. State of Tennessee, et al., No. 3:19-cv-00174 (M.D. Tenn.) (Richardson, J.). Although the plaintiff in that case, Mr. Harris, is no longer represented by counsel, the Court believes it proper (and even in Plaintiff's best interest) to await the resolution of common issues in the Harris case, which is further along in its development. At the very least, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by awaiting the outcome in Harris, as the Court would not be able to adjudicate this later-filed case any faster than the older Harris case, and the Court's focus on the Harris case well might enable the Court to more quickly make the substantive decisions in the Harris case (which could then be efficiently applied to the extent appropriate here) that this Plaintiff in effect asks this Court to make in her case.
“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes in its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants, and the entry of such an order ordinarily rests with the sound discretion of the District Court.” F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 626-27 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ohio Env't Council v. U.S. Dist. Ct., S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977)). In light of the convergence of issues and requests for relief between Plaintiff's case and the Harris case, and the likelihood that a stay in this case will serve the interest of judicial economy without causing undue prejudice to Plaintiff from any attendant delay, the Court finds a stay appropriate here. Cf. Arkona, LLC v. Cnty. of Cheboygan, No. 1:19-CV-12372, 2021 WL 2381892, at *2-4 (E.D. Mich. June 10, 2021).
Accordingly, proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED pending further order of the Court after resolution of related matters in Harris, No. 3:19-cv-00174.
IT IS SO ORDERED.