Robinson v. Thomas et al

Filing 9

ORDER adopting 4 the proposed findings and recommendation; denying 7 Robinson's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; dismissing without prejudice 2 Robinson's complaint; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 1/24/2017. (kdr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON ADC #164517 v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO: 5:16-CV-00301 BSM LIEUTENANT D. THOMAS and SERGEANT TAYLOR DEFENDANTS ORDER The proposed findings and recommendation [Doc. No. 4] submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris has been received, and it is adopted in its entirety. After submitting an incomplete in forma pauperis application, plaintiff Christopher Robinson, on September 28, 2016, was given 30 days to either pay his filing fee or file a fully completed and signed in forma pauperis application. See Doc. No. 3. On November 28, 2016, 60 days later, dismissal was recommended for failure to prosecute. See Doc. No. 4. Robinson filed a second in forma pauperis application [Doc. No. 7] on December 7, 2016. Robinson’s second application has not cured his deficiency. Instead, it contains inaccurate information regarding his prisoner account activity, as demonstrated by Robinson’s notice of filing of account balance sheet [Doc. No. 5], and it contains Robinson’s own signature instead of that of an authorized official. Accordingly, the proposed findings and recommendation [Doc. No. 4] is adopted, Robinson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 7] is denied, and Robinson’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. It is further certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of January 2017. UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?