Hammonds v. Johnson

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedOctober 6, 2022
Docket1:22-cv-00563
StatusUnknown

This text of Hammonds v. Johnson (Hammonds v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hammonds v. Johnson, (S.D. Ohio 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

MARK HAMMONDS, : Case No. 1:22-cv-563 : Plaintiff, : : District Judge Douglas R. Cole vs. : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry :

TAMEKA JOHNSON, :

: DEFICIENCY ORDER Defendant. : :

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Correctional Reception Center, has filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee required to commence this action or filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)–(h), a prisoner seeking to bring a civil action without prepayment of fees or security must submit an application and affidavit to proceed without prepayment of fees and a certified copy of their trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the complaint obtained from the cashier of the prison at which the prisoner is or was confined. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Plaintiff has not submitted an in forma pauperis application or a certified copy of plaintiff’s trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) as required by the PLRA. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to pay $402 ($350 filing fee plus $52 administrative fee), or submit to the Court an in forma pauperis application and certified copy of plaintiff’s prison trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prior six-month period within thirty (30) days. If plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court shall 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. Any motions for extension of time must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this

Deficiency Order. All motions for extension of time must be accompanied by a notarized statement or declaration complying with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 setting forth the date plaintiff placed the motion in the prison mail system and stating that first class postage was prepaid. If plaintiff does not receive the Deficiency Order within thirty (30) days, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time must also be accompanied by a notarized statement or declaration complying with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 setting forth the date plaintiff received this Deficiency Order. A copy of this Deficiency Order shall be sent to the cashier of the prison at which plaintiff is confined. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 6, 2022 /s/ Caroline H. Gentry Caroline H. Gentry United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act
105 F.3d 1131 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hammonds v. Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammonds-v-johnson-ohsd-2022.