Latham v. Julius

• Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
• Decided: January 4, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-12054
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) LINCOLN LATHAM, ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) NO. 23-12054-WGY ) OFFICER JULIUS, ) Defendant, ) )

YOUNG, D.J. January 4, 2024

ORDER

By Memorandum and Order, the Court advised Plaintiff Lincoln Latham that if he wishes to proceed with this action, he must file a complaint stating a plausible claim for relief accompanied by payment of the $402 filing fee or show cause why the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) do not bar him from proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee. Doc. No. 4. Latham was advised that failure to comply with these directives will result in the dismissal of this action. In response to the Memorandum and Order, Latham filed several documents and motions. He did not file a complaint. See Docket. Latham filed an objection to the Memorandum and Order stating, in part, that he is being “overcharged” and that “it is unconstitutional for [the assigned judge] to say the price [for filing a civil action] is $402.” Doc. No. 8. Latham further states that his case concerns allegations that a correctional officer “attempted to steal [a $1.50 hair cut slip] by searching [Latham’s] pants area at dinner time chow hall.” Id. Because Latham failed to comply with the Court’s directives, this action is subject to dismissal. See Tower

Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43, 45 (1st Cir. 2002) (“[D]isobedience of court orders, in and of itself, constitutes [misconduct and, thus, warrants dismissal]”). As to the filing fee, Latham cannot proceed in forma pauperis because he is subject to the three strikes restriction of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and has not shown that he is subject to the exception for being in imminent danger of any serious physical injury. Moreover, the filing fee for this action is set by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) ($350.00 filing fee for all non-habeas civil actions); Judicial Conference Fee Schedule ($52.00 administrative fee). In accordance with the foregoing, and for Latham’s failure

to comply with the Court’s Memorandum and Order, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ William G. Young WILLIAM G. YOUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE