Opinion
21-cv-03060-HSG
07-22-2021
THOMAS HEATON SPITTERS, Plaintiff, v. HEATHER MARIE BRIGGS, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge
On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff Thomas Heaton Spitters filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. Nos. 1, 3. On April 30, 2021, Judge Westmore denied the IFP application, explaining that the application was incomplete. See Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff had “not fully answered question number(s) 2, 4, 7, and 8, ” and had instead claimed that this information was “confidential.” Id. at 1. Judge Westmore directed Plaintiff to either file an amended IFP application or pay the filing fee by June 1, 2021. Id. at 2. Plaintiff failed to meet this deadline.
The case was reassigned to this Court on June 23, 2021. See Dkt. No. 9.
On June 24, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to either submit an amended IFP application or pay the filing fee by the June 1 deadline. See Dkt. No. 11. The Court gave Plaintiff until July 8 to file any amended IFP application, and cautioned that “[f]ailure to file an amended IFP application by this deadline may result in the dismissal of the action without further notice.” Id. As of the date of this order, however, Plaintiff has not filed an amended IFP application or paid the filing fee. Instead, Plaintiff submitted a copy of Judge Westmore's order and the reassignment order, with the word “received” written across the top of the documents. See Dkt. No. 12. The Court assumes, based on this filing, that Plaintiff was aware of the case deadlines and declined to meet them.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because this dismissal is without prejudice, Plaintiff may move to reopen the action. Any such motion must contain either the full filing fee or a complete IFP application, i.e., with all the questions answered fully. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.