Carpenter v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-11681
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACK EUGENE CARPENTER, III,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-11681 Hon. Denise Page Hood v.

UNITED STATES, ET AL,

Defendants. _______________________________________/

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE

On June 5, 2025, Jack Eugene Carpenter, III, a pretrial detainee at the Livingston County Jail, filed a pro se complaint. Plaintiff asserts that as a federal pretrial detainee he is being subjected to harsher conditions than what he would receive after conviction and placement with the BOP.1 Plaintiff did not pay the required filing fee, and his application to proceed in forma pauperis failed to include the necessary supporting documentation. The Court issued an Order to Correct Deficiency, informing Plaintiff of the documents that were missing from his application, and notifying him that if he did not correct his filing deficiency by July 10, 2025, the case may be dismissed.

1 Plaintiff faces charge in this Court of making threatening interstate communications. See United States v. Carpenter, Eastern District of Michigan No. 2:23-cr-20152. Plaintiff responded by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff states that he is entitled to in forma pauperis status because it was

granted to him in other civil actions he filed with the Court and by the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiff, however, failed to file the required current Certification/Business Manager’s Account Statement, and a statement of Trust Fund Account (or

institutional equivalent) for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997). Moreover, contrary to McGore, Plaintiff explicitly states that he does not authorize the withdrawal of funds from his trust fund account as required by 28 U.S.C. §

1915(b). (ECF No. 5, PageID.15.) In light of Plaintiff’s failure to correct his filing deficiency, the complaint is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b), Erby v. Kula, 113

F. App’x. 74, 75-6 (6th Cir. 2004); Davis v. United States, 73 F. App’x. 804, 805 (6th Cir. 2003). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Denise Page Hood Hon. Denise Page Hood United States District Judge Dated: July 23, 2025