Davis v. Jones et al (INMATE1)
ORDER; that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by the plaintiff on May 6, 2010 2 be and is hereby GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/11/2010. (jg, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION ROBERT LOUIS DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. JAY JONES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-393-ID [WO]
ORDER ON MOTION
This cause is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma paueris filed by the plaintiff on May 6, 2010.1 The court seeks to advise the plaintiff of the limited nature of being allowed to proceed in forma pauperis which only permits a plaintiff to commence this suit without prepayment of fees and court costs. The plaintiff should understand that he may incur expenses as a result of the prosecution of this case. In the event of a trial, the plaintiff may compel the attendance of witnesses through subpoena only by tendering to each witness payment of the requisite witness fee and mileage. Also, court costs, which vary, but which can be quite substantial, are normally assessed against the losing party. Thus, a plaintiff who does not prevail, even though proceeding in forma pauperis, may be charged with, and obligated to pay, all court costs. Accordingly, and having advised the plaintiff of the possible expense of litigation, it
The plaintiff is a former inmate of the Lee County Detention Facility. In the instant complaint, the plaintiff seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the conditions to which he was subjected during such confinement.
is ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by the plaintiff on May 6, 2010 (Court Doc. No. 2) be and is hereby GRANTED. Done this 11th day of May, 2010.
/s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?