Hunter v. Abbott et al

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing without prejudice re 1 Complaint filed by Michael P. Hunter. Objections to R&R due by 6/5/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 5/22/2013. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

MICHAEL P. HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE LOUISA ABBOTT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV413-035

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this inmate civil rights case the Court granted plaintiff Michael
P. Hunter in forma pauperis (IFP) status, doc. 3, conditioned on his
written consent to pay from his inmate account “an initial partial filing
fee equal to 20 percent of the greater of (a) the average monthly deposits
to my account, or (b) the average monthly balance in my account.” Doc.
4 at 1 (emphasis added). Hunter circled option (b) and signed his name
to the Consent Form. Id. He then furnished a statement of his prison
account, which reveals why he endeavored to limit his consent to option

(b): the average monthly balance has been only $103.66, while the
average monthly deposits (option (a)) has been $622.00. Doc. 5.
Hunter improperly sought to condition his consent by allowing the
collection of only a percentage of the average monthly balance, not the
average monthly deposits , to his prisoner account, in violation of the
statutory command that he pay “the greater of” the two figures. 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1). The Court then vacated its conditional IFP grant
and directed him to pay the full filing fee within 21 days or suffer
dismissal of his case. Doc. 6. In response, he “humbly requests that the
court dismiss” his case “without prejudice” and correct the record
regarding the $622 amount (he claims error on that score). Doc. 7. He
also moves to “negate and rectify” filings connected with a serially filing,
jailhouse lawyer. Doc. 8. That “lawyer,” he explained, filed materials
under Hunter’s name by way of a “Power of Attorney” that Hunter
evidently granted to him. Id. at 1.
It would only waste further judicial resources to resolve Hunter’s
latest motions, as opposed to simply granting his request to dismiss his
case (no service has been ordered, and thus no answer has been filed).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part his first

2

“Rectify” motion, doc. 7, and DENIES as moot his second (doc. 8) by
directing the Clerk to collect no fee. It is recommended that this case be

DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of
May, 2013.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUThER}'T DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3