White v. Office of the Federal Defender

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 6 MOTION to Stay filed by William A White. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/27/2016. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM A. WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-971-JPG-DGW

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff William A. White’s motion (Doc. 6) to stay
collection of the initial partial filing fee and subsequent fee assessments ordered by the Court on
September 20, 2016 (Doc. 5). White offers no authority for his request other than the provision in
the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E), the law under which White
brings this action, stating that Court may assess costs against the United States if the complainant
under the act substantially prevails in the action. He may substantially prevail either by a judicial
order, an enforceable written agreement, a consent decree or a voluntary or unilateral change in the
agency’s position if the complainant’s claim is not insubstantial. Id. This provision is normally
invoked at the end of litigation once it becomes apparent whether a claimant has substantially
prevailed.
This provision of FOIA does not relieve a FOIA plaintiff of his obligation under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a) to pay his filing fee in advance unless authorized to proceed without prepayment or to
proceed making partial payments under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, see Local Rule 3.1. The Court has
ordered that White may proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) without full prepayment of fees by
paying an initial partial filing fee of $163.53, with monthly payments thereafter (Doc. 6). White
has not provided any good reason for altering that order. The Court therefore DENIES White’s

motion (Doc. 6).
The Court further ORDERS White to pay his initial partial filing fee within 60 days of this
order or demonstrate that he has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing
fee. If White fails to pay or make such a showing, the Court may dismiss this action for lack of
prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and its inherent authority to manage
its docket. See In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 1995).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 27, 2016
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2