HUDDLESTONE v. Moore

Filing 5

OPINION and ORDER Denying In Forma Pauperis Status and Summarily Dismissing 1 Complaint. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

Case 1:20-cv-12417-TLL-DRG ECF No. 5 filed 10/30/20

PageID.19

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

STEVE D. HUDDLESTONE, #318748,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:20-CV-12417
Hon. Thomas L. Ludington

v.
GEOFFREY MOORE, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND
SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is an inmate confined at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson,
Michigan. Plaintiff filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 25,
2020, ECF No. 1, and applied for in forma pauperis status. ECF No. 2. On September 24, 2020,
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an order of deficiency, requiring Plaintiff to provide a
Prisoner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs and Authorization to
Withdraw from the Trust Fund Account, a signed certification of his prison trust account from an
authorized jail official, and a current computerized trust fund account showing the financial
transactions in Plaintiff’s institutional trust fund account for the past six months. ECF No. 3.
Alternatively, the order permitted Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 dollar filing fee in full. Id. Plaintiff
was given thirty days to comply with the order. Id. On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed an
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs. ECF No. 4.
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis status
will be denied and the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.

Case 1:20-cv-12417-TLL-DRG ECF No. 5 filed 10/30/20

PageID.20

Page 2 of 4

I.
Plaintiff’s complaint is against three fellow inmates at Cotton Correctional Facility.
Plaintiff alleges that when he was in the first and second grade at an elementary school in
Nashville, Tennessee, one of the defendants raped him. ECF No. 1 at PageID.3. He asserts that
after the rapes, the two other defendants caused the first one to kill everyone in their class. Id.
Plaintiff seeks to have the defendants held criminally liable for the rapes and murders and requests
civil damages. Id. at PageID.3–4.
On October 5, 2020, in response to the Court’s order to correct a filing deficiency, ECF
No. 3, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepayment of Fees or
Costs. The application included written authorization to withdraw funds from his prison trust fund
account, ECF No. 4 at PageID.14, but did not contain a certified trust account statement for the
preceding six months. In addition, Plaintiff did not obtain a signed certification from the
appropriate prison official; rather, he signed the certification form himself. Id. at PageID.16.
Plaintiff’s filing contained a “Letter to the Court Clerk,” which stated that he was unable to obtain
a monthly statement from the RUM resident unit manager “Due to Indigency [sic].” Id. at
PageID.17.
II.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), “a prisoner [who] brings a civil action
or files an appeal in forma pauperis . . . shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The moment a complaint is filed, a plaintiff becomes responsible for the filing
fee and waives any objection to the withdrawal of funds from his or her trust account to pay court
fees and costs. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007). The in forma pauperis statute provides

-2-

Case 1:20-cv-12417-TLL-DRG ECF No. 5 filed 10/30/20

PageID.21

Page 3 of 4

prisoners the opportunity to make a down payment of a partial filing fee and pay the remainder in
installments. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b); see also Miller v. Campbell, 108 F. Supp. 2d 960, 962 (W.D.
Tenn. 2000).
A prisoner who seeks to file a complaint as a pauper must file an affidavit of indigency and
a certified copy of the trust fund account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding
the filing of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); McGore, 114 F. 3d at 605. The affidavit
must include “a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay
such fees or give security therefor[,]” and must also “state the nature of the action, defense or
appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
A plaintiff who does not pay the full filing fee and fails to provide the required documents
must be notified of the deficiency and granted 30 days to correct it or pay the full fee. Davis v.
United States, 73 F. App’x 804, 805 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing McGore, 114 F. 3d at 605). “If the
prisoner does not correct the deficiency, the district court must presume that he or she is not a
pauper, assess the full fee, and order the case dismissed for want of prosecution.” Id. As required,
Magistrate Judge Whalen gave Plaintiff 30 days to correct his deficiency. ECF No. 3. The
deficiency order instructed Plaintiff that noncompliance would result in dismissal, and that the
action would “not be reinstated even if he . . . subsequently pays the fee.” Id.
In response to the order to correct the deficiency, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed
without prepayment of fees and costs, but asserted he was unable to obtain a monthly statement
“Due to Indigency [sic].” Id. at PageID.17. Plaintiff provides no explanation of what steps he took,
if any, to obtain the certified trust fund account statement and certification. Nor did he ask for an
extension of time in which to obtain the necessary documents.

-3-

Case 1:20-cv-12417-TLL-DRG ECF No. 5 filed 10/30/20

PageID.22

Page 4 of 4

Plaintiff’s application remains deficient because he failed to file the required certified trust
fund account statement. “An uncertified trust fund account statement, or one that lacks the
appropriate official’s signature, is insufficient to satisfy the filing requirements for a prisoner to
proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915(a)(2).” See Moore v. Vantifflin, Case No. 2:08-cv-15168,
2009 WL 224548, *1 (E.D. Mich. January 30, 2009) (Rosen, J.) (citing Hart v. Jaukins, 99 F.
App’x 208, 209-10 (10th Cir. 2004)).
III.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,
ECF No. 4, is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
It is further ORDERED that an appeal from this decision would be frivolous and could not
be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962). For the same reason, leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

Dated: October 30, 2020

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon STEVE D. HUDDLESTONE #318748, G. ROBERT COTTON
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 3500 N. ELM ROAD, JACKSON, MI
49201 by first class U.S. mail on October 30, 2020.
s/Kelly Winslow
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager

-4-