CONERLY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ENTRY - This action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions, dkt 8 , 9 , 12 , 16 , 20 , 21 , and 26 , are denied as moot. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/27/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Western District of Washington Recommendation, # 2 Southern District of Illinois Entry) (Copy mailed to Plaintiffs) (MEJ)
Case 4:16-mc-00004-JPG Document 6 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DETRICK CURTIS CONERLY, MICHAEL AARON
BONNER and JOHN CRUZ MENO,
Case No. 16-mc-04-JPG
TOM WOLF, KATHLEEN KANE and PARAN LLP,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Detrick Curtis Conerly’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis in this miscellaneous case (Doc. 2). In this case, Conerly seeks to
register a foreign judgment purportedly issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland
County, Pennsylvania. The filing fee to register a foreign judgment is $47.00.
A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma
pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious or fails to state a
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii).
The Court is satisfied from Conerly’s affidavit that he is indigent. However, Conerly has
failed to state a claim over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. State court
judgments cannot be registered in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, the statute authorizing
registration of judgments in federal court. Marbury Law Group, PLLC v. Carl, 729 F. Supp. 2d
78, 83 (D.D.C. 2010); Dearborn St. Bldg. Assocs. LLC v. D & T Land Holdings, LLC, No. 1:07CV-1056, 2008 WL 2397660, at *4 (W.D. Mich. June 9, 2008); McConico v. Miles, No. 4:05-cv572, 2005 WL 2033436 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 18, 2005); Orne v. Shinn, No. Civ 02-336, 2002 WL
Case 4:16-mc-00004-JPG Document 6 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #33
1729651, at *1 (D.N.H. July 26, 2002); Atkinson v. Kestell, 954 F. Supp. 14, 15 n.2 (D.D.C.
1997), aff’d sub nom. Atkinson v. Inter-Am. Dev. Bank, 156 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1998), as
amended (Oct. 28, 1998); W.S. Frey Co., Inc. v. Precipitation Assocs. of Am., Inc., 899 F. Supp.
1527, 1528 (W.D. Va. 1995). The federal registration of judgments statute only authorizes
registration in federal court of a judgment from a federal court of appeals, a federal district court,
a bankruptcy court or the Court of International Trade. 28 U.S.C. § 1963. It does not authorize
registration of a judgment from any court other than those listed in the statute itself. Fox
Painting Co. v. N.L.R.B., 16 F.3d 115, 117 (6th Cir. 1994). State court judgments should be
registered for enforcement, if necessary, only in another state court. Euro-Am. Coal Trading,
Inc. v. James Taylor Mining, Inc., 431 F. Supp. 2d 705, 708-09 (E.D. Ky. 2006).
For this reason, the Court:
DENIES Conerly’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2);
DENIES Conerly’s motion for certified copies of filings (Doc. 4);
DISMISSES this case for lack of jurisdiction; and
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case and to return any further documents
tendered in connection with this case without filing them.
The Court further notes that Conerly’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was
incurred at the time the action was filed, thus if the $47.00 filing fee is not waived, it shall
remain due and payable regardless of the dismissal of this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1);
Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). Should Conerly fail to comply with his
fee payment obligation, he may be barred from filing future actions in this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 26, 2017
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
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?