Jones v. Rowcliffe et al
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. This dismissal shall not count as one of Plaintiff's allotted strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Plaintiff's obligation to pay the filing fee for this action survives di smissal of this case. The filing fee for the next action that Plaintiff files pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Southern District of Illinois shall be WAIVED, on the condition that Plaintiff also files a copy of this Order with the complaint. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/3/2017. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID JONES,
#Y13663,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DELSLIE ROWCLIFFE,
and CRAIG FOSTER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 17-cv-00223-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff David Jones, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at Vandalia Correctional
Center, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges
that he was denied the opportunity for work release by Vandalia’s warden on September 30, 2016.
(Doc. 1, pp. 5-7). He requests a hearing on the matter and monetary damages. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). The
Complaint currently awaits preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At the time he filed this
action, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) and a Motion to
Appoint Counsel (Doc. 3), both of which are pending.
One day after filing his Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint
(Doc. 5). In the motion, Plaintiff explained that he no longer wishes to take legal action because the
“issue has been resolved.” (Doc. 5, p. 1).
Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action
was filed, and a filing fee of $400.00 1 remains due and payable whether or not the action is
1
Effective May 1, 2013, the filing fee for a civil case increased from $350.00 to $400.00, by the addition of a
new $50.00 administrative fee for filing a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court. See Judicial
Conference Schedule of Fees—District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, 28 U.S.C. § 1914, No. 14. A
litigant who is granted IFP status, however, is exempt from paying the new $50.00 fee.
1
voluntarily dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir.
1998). In light of Plaintiff’s timely request to voluntarily dismiss the case before the Complaint was
screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, however, the Court will not assess an additional filing fee for the
next civil rights action Plaintiff chooses to file in this District. But in order to bring a new action
without incurring an additional filing fee, Plaintiff will be required to file a copy of this Order with
his complaint in the new case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Complaint (Doc. 5) is
GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
This dismissal shall not count as one of Plaintiff’s allotted “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 3) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3)
will be addressed in a separate Order of the Court.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action
survives dismissal of this case. The filing fee for the next action that Plaintiff files pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Southern District of Illinois shall be WAIVED, on the condition that
Plaintiff also files a copy of this Order with the complaint.
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter a judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 3, 2017
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
2
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?