Wilkins v. VanNatta

Full title: DAVID A. WILKINS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN R. VanNATTA, et al., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

Date published: Nov 21, 2006

No. 3:06-CV-714 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 21, 2006)

Opinion

No. 3:06-CV-714.

November 21, 2006

OPINION AND ORDER

RUDY LOZANO, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the "Motion to Clarify the Filing Fee," filed by David A. Wilkins, a pro se prisoner, on November 20, 2006. For the reasons set forth below, the motion (DE #4) is DENIED. Wilkins is GRANTED to and including December 15, 2006, to either pay the $350 filing fee OR file an in forma pauperis petition. The Court cautions Wilkins that if he does not cure this deficiency on or before the deadline, this case will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), but he will still be responsible to pay the $350 filing fee in installments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(b).

DISCUSSION

The Plaintiff argues that because he paid the filing fee in Wilkins v. Correctional Medical Services, 2:05-CV-446 (N.D. Ind. filed December 16, 2005), which was dismissed without prejudice, he should be permitted to re-file his complaint in this case without additional cost. While Plaintiff attempts to argue that his prior case is synonymous with this case, it is worthy to point out that the complaint in this case provides that, "There has not been any other lawsuits filed regarding any of the defendants and/or things complained about in this complaint." (Compl. at 5, DE # 1.) Thus, Plaintiff himself is contradictory as to whether this case covers the same subject matter as his prior case. This inconsistency, though confusing, is irrelevant.

Ultimately, these are two different cases; the prior case is closed and Plaintiff has now filed this case. "[I]f a prisoner brings a civil action . . . the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Simply, Plaintiff has brought two civil actions and therefore he must pay two filing fees.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify the Filing Fee is DENIED. Wilkins is GRANTED to and including December 15, 2006, to either pay the $350 filing fee OR file an in forma pauperis petition.