Garflo-Soto v. Does et al
Filing
4
OPINION and ORDER of summary dismissal Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL GARFLO-SOTO,
Case No. 12-cv-14075
HONORABLE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
Plaintiff,
v.
SIX UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
This is a civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that was filed on September
13, 2012. According to his pro se complaint, plaintiff is an inmate currently confined at the Shu
Correctional Center in Big Spring, Texas. On October 1, 2012, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
signed an order of deficiency, which required plaintiff to pay the $350.00 filing fee or to submit an
application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days of the order. That order was returned to
the clerk’s office because the prison was unable to locate plaintiff at the address he provided to the
Court when he filed this action just two weeks earlier. To date, plaintiff has neither paid the filing
fee in full or supplied the Court with the requested information.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) states that “if a prisoner brings a civil action or files
an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). See also In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138 (6th Cir.
1997). Under the PLRA, a prisoner may bring a civil action in forma pauperis if he files 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.A. § 1915(a). If the inmate does not
pay the full filing fee and fails to provide the required documents, the district court must notify the
prisoner of the deficiency and grant him thirty days to correct it or pay the entire fee. See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 605 (6th Cir.1997). If the prisoner does not comply, the district court
must presume that the prisoner is not a pauper, assess the full fee, and order the case dismissed for
want of prosecution. Id.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with Magistrate Judge Whalen’s deficiency order by neglecting
to timely pay the filing fee or provide the requested documentation needed to proceed in forma
pauperis. He also did not provide the Court with his correct address and has therefore deprived the
Court of the ability to manage this action. The Court will therefore dismiss the complaint for want
of prosecution. See Erby v. Kula, 113 Fed. Appx. 74, 75-76 (6th Cir. 2004); Davis v. United States,
73 F. App’x 804, 805 (6th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the action is dismissed without prejudice.
_s/ Bernard A. Friedman________________
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 19, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of
record on November 19, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Carol L. Mullins
Case Manager
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?