Opinion
2:24-cv-10250
07-03-2024
ANTHONY DAVID THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD LEE ROBINSON et al., Defendants.
ORDER PROHIBITING REFILING OF CASE AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL INFORMA PAUPERIS
Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge
On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff Thomas's complaint in the above-captioned case was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and (b) for failure “to pay the $405 filing fee and to apply in the manner required by law to proceed without prepayment.” ECF No. 62 at PageID.278 (citing ECF No. 26 at PageID.151).
“If the case is dismissed under these circumstances, it is not to be reinstated to the district court's active docket”-even if the plaintiff attempts to pay the filing fees. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997) (dismissing case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007); Boussum v. Washington, 655 F.Supp.3d 636, 642 (E.D. Mich. 2023) (holding that McGore applies to cases dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)); see also Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 489 (6th Cir. 2002) (same “where the district court dismisses cases sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A”), abrogated on other grounds by Jones, 549 U.S. 199; Redd v. Redmon, 215 F.3d 1327 (6th Cir. 2000) (same for cases dismissed “under § 1915(e)(2)(A)”).
Moreover, Thomas may not appeal in forma pauperis, because an appeal from the dismissal order would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Anthony Thomas's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is PROHIBITED from being reinstated to the district court's active docket-even if Plaintiff Thomas pays the filing fees.
Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Thomas is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Further, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Case No. 24-1266.