Houghton v. Heart et al

Filing 15

ORDER : Judge Atkins Recommended Disposition [R. 7 ] is ADOPTED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiffs failure to prosecute, and STRICKEN from the docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 8/28/19.(SYD)cc: mailed to pro se filer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LONDON
LAURENCE HOUGHTON,
Plaintiff,
V.
EARL HART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
Civil No.: 6:15-cv-00092-GFVT-EBA
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court a Recommended Disposition filed by the United States
Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins. [R. 7.] On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff Laurence Houghton
filed a pro se civil complaint against several inmates in the federal detention facility in
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. [R. 1.] Mr. Houghton’s complaint alleges that these defendants and
fellow inmates attacked him, beating and stabbing him, because they believed he was a sex
offender. Id. Mr. Houghton failed to pay the filing fee, but contemporaneously filed a Motion
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. [R. 3.] However, he neglected to file the requisite
paperwork. On June 12, 2015, the Court denied Mr. Houghton’s Motion to Proceed IFP without
prejudice, and ordered him to either pay the filing fee or complete an affidavit of assets and
certificate of inmate account within fourteen days. [R. 5.]
In the interim, the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins. [R. 6.]
Fourteen days elapsed without payment of the filing fee or completing the IFP paperwork, and so
Judge Atkins prepared a Recommended Disposition. [R. 7.] Judge Atkins recommended
dismissing the case for failure to comply with the Court’s Order [R. 5]. Mr. Houghton did not
object, and the Court adopted the Recommended Disposition. [R. 8.] The Court later learned

that Mr. Houghton was in SHU when the Recommended Disposition was filed and did not
receive the Recommendation until he was released from SHU. [R. 9; R. 11.] The Court vacated
its Order adopting the Recommendation and allowed Mr. Houghton fourteen days additional
days from the entry of that Order to object. [R. 13.] Mr. Houghton’s objections to the
Recommendation are before the Court. [R. 14.]
Dates become important here. On June 12, 2015, the Court ordered Mr. Houghton to
either (1) pay the $350.00 filing fee; or (2) file the documents necessary to establish in forma
pauperis status within fourteen days. That fourteen-day period would have expired on June 26,
2015. [R. 5; R. 7.] Mr. Houghton was attacked again, and sent to SHU for his own safety on
June 30, 2015, four days after his time to file his paperwork elapsed. [R. 11 at 7.]
Mr. Houghton argues that Judge Atkins calculation of time is incorrect, and that he
should have had until July 2, 2015 to file the IFP paperwork. [R. 14 at 4.] However, that
contradicts the explicit language of this Court’s order. [R. 5 (“On or before June 26, 2015,
Houghton must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and the $50.00 administrative fee, or complete
and file each of these forms. If he fails to do so, the Court will dismiss the case for failure to
prosecute.”] Even if we accepted Mr. Houghton’s argument that he could not have been served
until June 15, 2015, pursuant to Rule 6 the latest he should have filed the IFP paperwork then
was June 29, 2015, the day before Mr. Houghton returned to SHU. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Mr.
Houghton has not demonstrated any reason why he could not have complied with this Court’s
Order. [R. 5.]
Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED
that Judge Atkins’ Recommended Disposition [R. 7] is ADOPTED. This action is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, and STRICKEN

2

from the docket.
This the 28th day of August, 2019.

3