Mitchell v. Wexford Health Care Services et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is restricted from filing any new civil actions in this Court until such time as his outstanding filing fees of $5588.92 have been paid in full. This filing restriction d oes not extend to a notice of appeal from this Order, to the filing of any petition for a writ of habeas corpus (which is deemed summarily dismissed if not otherwise addressed within 30 days of filing), or to pleadings filed as a defendant in another criminal or civil case. Plaintiff may seek reconsideration of this Order by filing a motion in this Court no earlier than two years from the date of entry of this Order. See attached order for details. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 4/10/2018. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANNEL M. MITCHELL, #R-07374,
WEXFORD HEALTH CARE
SERVICES et al.,
Case No. 18-cv-00119-MJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge:
On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the full filing fee of $400 for this
action and the outstanding money owed for his previously filed 1 and other pending actions in full
no later than March 12, 2018 (Doc. 8). The deadline for payment has now passed. Plaintiff has
made no payment toward the $400 filing fee he owes in this case or, more broadly, the $5588.92
total he owes for all of the cases he has filed in this District, including this one. 2 Plaintiff has
also failed to respond to the Court’s requirement that he show cause why the Court should not
restrict him from filing any further actions in this Court while the fees remain unpaid.
Because Plaintiff has not paid the outstanding fees he owes the Court and has failed to
show cause why the Court should not restrict him from filing future documents until his fees are
paid in full, this Court finds it necessary to so restrict Plaintiff. Clearly, monetary sanctions are
not enough to deter Plaintiff from filing future claims with this Court, as he has accumulated
The Court noted in its Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8) that
Plaintiff’s outstanding balance for lawsuits he filed in this District in 2016-17 is $3,188.92. That amount does not
include the money he owes for the cases he has filed in this District in 2018, which he is also required to pay.
Plaintiff was directed to pay the filing fee in each of the pending cases he filed in this district in 2018. His latest
deadline for payment was April 9, 2018 in Case No. 18-cv-122-MJR. This deadline, along with each of his other
deadlines, has passed without payment from Plaintiff. For this reason, the Court anticipates that each of Plaintiff’s
pending 2018 cases will be dismissed, though dismissal of 18-cv-122-MJR remains forthcoming given the recent
$5588.92 in fees and has shown little to no effort to pay the debt. Thus, to simply add to that
debt in an effort to cease Plaintiff’s abuse of the Court is useless.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is restricted from filing any
new civil actions in this Court until such time as his outstanding filing fees of $5588.92 have
been paid in full. This filing restriction does not extend to a notice of appeal from this Order, to
the filing of any petition for a writ of habeas corpus (which is deemed summarily dismissed if not
otherwise addressed within 30 days of filing), or to pleadings filed as a defendant in another
criminal or civil case. Plaintiff may seek reconsideration of this Order by filing a motion in this
Court no earlier than two years from the date of entry of this Order.
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this order, he may file a notice of appeal with this Court
within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). If Plaintiff does choose to
appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the
appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724,
725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v. Jockisch,
133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). Moreover, because Plaintiff has “struck out,” this Court will
not grant him permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Finally, if the appeal is found
to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur another “strike.”
Should Plaintiff attempt to file any new action in this Court, the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to return any documents submitted in violation of this Order to Plaintiff unfiled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of the Plaintiff SHALL
remit the $400.00 filing fee from his prison trust fund account if such funds are available. If he
does not have $400.00 in his account, the agency must send an initial payment of 20% of the
current balance or the average balance during the past six months, whichever amount is higher.
Thereafter, Plaintiff shall make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income
credited to Plaintiff's prison trust fund account until the $400.00 filing fee is paid in full. The
agency having custody of Plaintiff shall forward these payments from the Plaintiff’s trust fund
account to the Clerk of this Court each time the Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the
$400.00 fee is paid. Payments shall be mailed to: Clerk of the Court, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Ave., East St. Louis, Illinois 62201. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to the Trust Fund Officer at the Western
Illinois Correctional Center upon entry of this Order.
This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 10, 2018
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
U.S. Chief District Judge
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?