Baker v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TERRY BAKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-12379
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et. al.,
Defendants,
______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff is an inmate confined at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson,
Michigan. On July 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an order of deficiency,
which required plaintiff to provide a prisoner’s application to proceed without prepayment of
fees and costs and authorization to withdraw from 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 history of the financial transactions in plaintiff’s institutional trust fund
account for the past six months. Alternatively, the order allowed plaintiff to pay the four
hundred ($ 400.00) dollar filing fee in full. Plaintiff was given thirty days to comply with the
order. To date, plaintiff has not complied with the terms of the deficiency order.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) requires a prisoner who wishes to proceed without prepayment of
fees and costs in a civil complaint in federal court to file a certified copy of the trust fund
account statement for that prisoner for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of

1

the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which
the prisoner is or was confined. See also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir.
1997); overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
If an inmate who does not pay the full filing fee fails to provide an affidavit of indigency
or a certified trust account statement, the district court must notify the prisoner of the deficiency
and the prisoner will then have thirty days from the date of the deficiency order to correct the
error or to pay the full filing fee. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 605. If the inmate fails
to comply with the district court’s directions, “[t]he district court must presume that the prisoner
is not a pauper and assess the inmate the full amount of fees.” Id. The district court must then
order that the case be dismissed for want of prosecution. Id.
The Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution, because
plaintiff failed to comply with Magistrate Judge Whalen’s deficiency order by failing to timely
pay the filing fee or providing the requested documentation needed to proceed in forma
pauperis. See Erby v. Kula, 113 F. Appx. 74, 75-6 (6th Cir. 2004).
ORDER
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the complaint [Dkt.
Entry # 1] under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (b)(1) and (2) for failure to comply with the filing
requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 27, 2015

2

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 August 27, 2015.

s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager

3