Christopher D. Bell v. John Doe Hoover, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00021
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION (CINCINNATI )

CHRISTOPHER D. BELL, : Case No. 1:26-cv-00021 : Plaintiff, : District Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry vs. : : JOHN DOE HOOVER, et al., : : Defendants. : ORDER

Plaintiff, Christopher D. Bell, is a state prisoner proceeding without the assistance of counsel. On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed an unsigned civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1), a Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction seeking access to his legal materials (Doc. 2), and a Motion for Delay in Paying Full Filing Fee (Doc. 3). Observing certain initial issues, the Clerk mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Deficiency, instructing him that he must (1) pay the full filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days; (2) file a civil cover sheet; and (3) submit necessary service documents. (Doc. 4). When a prisoner files a civil complaint in a district court, the inmate must either pay the entire filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis “without prepayment of fees or security therefor” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(h). Plaintiff’s Motion for Delay in Paying Full Filing Fee states he needs an additional thirty days to submit the full fee. (Doc. 3, at PageID 22). The Motion also suggests that Plaintiff intends to wait for a ruling on his request for preliminary injunctive relief before he pays the required filing

fee and/or submits an operative Complaint. (Id.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Delay in paying the filing fee (Doc. 3). As a practical matter, the Notice of Deficiency already allows for an additional thirty days to pay the required filing fee and/or submit an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Further, the Court cannot consider any motions for preliminary injunctive relief until Plaintiff properly initiates this action by paying the filing fee or

obtaining in forma pauperis status and files a signed Complaint. See Benson v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc., No. 2:17cv02748, 2018 WL 11476049, *2 (W.D. Tenn. May 21, 2018) (denying IFP status and noting that “[u]ntil Plaintiff pays the applicable filing fee” all motions, including the motion for a preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order, are “premature”). See also Powell v. Rios, 241 F. App’x 500, 505 n.4

(10th Cir. 2007) (“[O]nly a properly-filed ‘complaint’ can commence a civil action. Absent a properly-filed complaint, a court lacks power to issue preliminary injunctive relief.” (citations omitted)); Ikner v. J. Scott Resources, No. 1:25cv1258, 2025 WL 1724797, *1 (N.D. Oh. June 20, 2025) (“Absent a properly filed complaint, a court lacks the jurisdiction to issue preliminary injunctive relief.”).

In accordance with the January 9, 2026 Notice of Deficiency, Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to pay $405 ($350 filing fee plus $55 administrative fee) or submit to the Court an in forma pauperis application and certified copy of Plaintiff’s prison trust fund 2 account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prior six-month period on or by February 9, 2026. If Plaintiff elects to pay the required filing fee, the Court must

receive the entire $405 fee within that time period. The CLERK is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with an Application and Affidavit By Incarcerated Person to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees form. The CLERK is further DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the cashier of the prison at which Plaintiff is confined. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court may dismiss this case for want of prosecution. In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir.

1997). If Plaintiff’s case is dismissed for failure to comply with this Order, the case will not be reinstated to the Court’s active docket despite the payment of the filing fee. Id. Should Plaintiff need additional time to comply with this Order, he should file a motion for an extension of time. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Caroline H. Gentry Caroline H. Gentry United States Magistrate Judge