Taylor El v. U.S. Government et al

Filing 6

ORDER Denying 5 Objection filed by Betty June Taylor El, ( Response due by 7/22/2014) Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BETTY J. TAYLOR EL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-12365
Paul D. Borman
United States District Court

U.S. GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER DENYING MY
APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT REPAYING FEES OR COSTS” (DKT. NO. 5)
AND ALLOWING PLAINTIFF UNTIL JULY 22, 2014 TO FILE A CONFORMING
APPLICATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Objections to the Order Denying My Application to
Proceed Without Repaying [sic] Fees or Costs”. (Dkt. No. 5). On June 19, 2014, the Court
entered an Order denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Dkt. No. 4). The Court found that Plaintiff’s affidavit was
insufficient to allow the Court to determine whether she should be permitted to proceed without
prepayment of fees. The Order specifically noted that Plaintiff’s answers in her affidavit were
non-responsive and generally consisted of a circle with a line through its middle. In the June 19,
2014 Order the Court advised Plaintiff she could file a conforming Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees and that failure to file a responsive Application by July 7, 2014
would result in the dismissal of this action.
Plaintiff has not filed a conforming Application with responsive answers. Rather, on July
1, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Objections to the Court’s Order. (Dkt. No. 5). Plaintiff asserts in her
Objections that “[t]here have been cases filed in the United States District in which the exact

same application was filed no. 14-12123 and case no. 2:14-cv-11031 because there is no lawful
money pursuant to Crandall v. State of Nevada, and they were granted.” (Dkt. No. 5, at 1).
Plaintiff then argues that she does not understand why these other applications were granted and
hers was denied by this Court. (Id.). Plaintiff also argues that there should be some conformity
as to this process. (Id.).
To the extent Plaintiff relies upon (her own previously filed case) Taylor v. Credit
Acceptance Corporation, et al., No. 14-11031, (E.D. Mich. filed March 10, 2014) such reliance
is misplaced.1 Although in Taylor, Plaintiff did submit an Application to Proceed Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs that was approved, that application posed different questions. (See Dkt.
No. 5, Ex. A). Further, it appears that court found Plaintiff’s responses to those different
questions to be responsive. (Id.). In the affidavit before this Court, Plaintiff’s responses fail to
tick the appropriate boxes or respond with words where required. Therefore, this Court finds
Plaintiff’s Application to be non-responsive and insufficient to allow the Court to determine
whether Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees should be granted.

1

The Court notes that the other case upon which Plaintiff relies is not on point. In Scott
v. Groves, et al., No. 14-12123, Dkt. No. 2 (E.D. Mich. filed May 22, 2014), the plaintiff, an
inmate, submitted an Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and answered
each question appropriately. Thereafter, that court ordered the plaintiff to file a certified trust
account statement in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). See Scott v. Groves, et al., No.
14-12123, Dkt. No. 4, Order to Correct Deficiency (filed June 3, 2014). The plaintiff complied
and the application was granted. Id., No. 14-12123, Dkt. No. 6, Order granting Application
(filed June 9, 2014). Therefore, the application at issue in Scott is not factually analogous
whatsoever to Plaintiff’s current Application.

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Objections but will allow Plaintiff to file
a conforming Application on or before July 22, 2014. If such an Application is not received on
or before that date, Plaintiff’s case will be dismissed without further notice from this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 9, 2014
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or
party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July 9, 2014.

s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager

3