Wright v. Watson

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedJanuary 27, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-04042
StatusUnknown

This text of Wright v. Watson (Wright v. Watson) 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
Wright v. Watson, (S.D. Ohio 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS

RAMONE WRIGHT, : Case No. 2:22-cv-4042 : Plaintiff, : : Judge Sarah D. Morrison vs. : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry : MICHAEL H. WATSON, : : Defendant. :

DEFICIENCY ORDER

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding without the assistance of counsel, has submitted a civil rights complaint to this Court. (Doc. 1-1). The case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and General Order 22-05 regarding assignments and references to United States Magistrate Judges. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee required to commence this civil action or filed a properly supported application to proceed without the prepayment of fees. As a prisoner, Plaintiff is subject to the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(h). Under the PLRA, a prisoner seeking to bring a civil action without prepayment of fees or security—to proceed in forma pauperis—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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The trust fund account statement is obtained from the cashier of the prison or jail at which the prisoner is or was confined. Id. Here, Plaintiff has filed an Application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. (Doc. 1). But the Application does not attach a certified copy of Plaintiff’s trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). As such, the Application does not satisfy the PLRA.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay $402 ($350 filing fee plus $52 administrative fee) or submit to the Court a certified copy of Plaintiff’s trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the complaint WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the date of this Deficiency Order. To assist Plaintiff, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send him a blank copy of the standard form Application to proceed in forma pauperis that is used in this Court along with this Deficiency Order. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to send a copy of this Deficiency Order to the cashier of the institution at which Plaintiff is confined. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Deficiency Order, the Court shall dismiss the case for want of prosecution as required by In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir.

1997). If Plaintiff’s case is so dismissed, it will not be reinstated to the Court’s active docket despite payment of the filing fee. Id. Plaintiff is ADVISED that he must keep this Court informed of his current address, and promptly file a Notice of New Address if he is released or transferred. No answer to the Complaint or other response from Defendant is required at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED. January 26, 2023 /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)
Wright v. Watson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-watson-ohsd-2023.