Johnson v. Ambling Companies

Filing 9

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Leave to File; denying 8 Motion to Vacate. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 1/13/2010. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA V AL D O S T A DIVISION C IN D Y JOHNSON, P la in tiff, v. A M B L IN G COMPANIES, D e fe n d a n t. : : : : : : : : ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to F ile Renewed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 7) (the "R e n e w e d IFP Motion") and Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order to Dismiss a n d Reinstate Complaint (Doc. 8) (the "Motion to Vacate"). P la in tiff filed her Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 1) (the "IF P Motion") and Complaint (Doc. 2) on July 14, 2009. On July 15, 2009, th is Court entered an Order (Doc. 3) instructing the Plaintiff to complete a n d file the "Application to Proceed in District Court W ith o u t Prepaying F e e s or Costs" form (an "Application") by August 4, 2009. Rather than c o m p ly with this Court's instructions, though, on August 10 the Plaintiff filed a n Affidavit (Doc. 4) in support her IFP Motion. Because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's order, this Court entered an Order (Doc. 5) and J u d g m e n t (Doc. 6) dismissing the Plaintiff's case without prejudice. :

C a s e No. 7:09-CV-90 (HL)

On August 18, the Plaintiff filed her Renewed IFP Motion. She did n o t file an Application to support her Renewed IFP Motion. On August 24, th e Plaintiff filed her Motion to Vacate. A fte r filing the above motions, the Plaintiff filed yet another lawsuit, C a s e Number 7:09-CV-124, with this Court on October 14, 2009. This la w s u it was identical to this lawsuit. In the subsequent lawsuit, the Plaintiff file d another motion to proceed in forma pauperis along with her complaint. On October 15, this Court denied the Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion a n d gave the Plaintiff until October 28 to file an Application. W h e n the P la in tiff failed to do this, this Court dismissed the Plaintiff's case without p r e ju d ic e . T h is Court has provided the Plaintiff plenty of opportunities to file her IF P Motion correctly, and yet the Plaintiff still has not filed an Application in s u p p o rt of her IFP Motion. Accordingly, the Renewed IFP Motion (Doc. 7) a n d the Motion to Vacate (Doc. 8) are denied. S O ORDERED, this the 13 th day of January, 2010.

s / Hugh Lawson HUGH LAW S O N , Senior Judge jc h

2