White v. Walker et al

Filing 15

ORDER finding as moot 11 Motion for directions; denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 11/14/08. (eed)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DONNIE D. WHITE, Plaintiff, vs. ROGER E. WALKER, JR., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. 08-cv-633-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge: The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, finding that he had accumulated three or more strikes (see Doc. 7). Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion challenging that decision (Doc. 12). In his motion, he argues that the Court should not count as a strike those cases in which only some of his claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, the Seventh Circuit disagrees, as the Court explained in that earlier order. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607-08 (7th Cir. 2007); Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 855 (7th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the instant motion is DENIED. As previously granted, Plaintiff is reminded that he has through and including January 10, 2009, to pay the full $350 filing fee for this action. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for directions instanter (Doc. 11), which seems to seek additional time to file his amended complaint. That amended complaint was filed on October 30, 2008; therefore, this motion is MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 11/14/08

s/ G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge

ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç