Mann v. Schlottman et al

Filing 16

ORDER Granting in Part (1) Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Recall the Case and (2) 13 Motion to Remedy Default. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JACK MANN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-12869
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
SOE SCHLOTTMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART (1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO RECALL THE CASE (ECF #11) AND (2) MOTION
TO REMEDY DEFAULT (ECF #13)
Plaintiff Jack Mann (“Mann”) is an inmate currently confined at the
Allenwood Federal Correctional institute in White Deer, Pennsylvania. Mann filed
his Complaint against the Defendants on August 14, 2015, but failed to pay the
$350.00 filing fee and the additional required administrative fee of $50.00 (for a
total of $400.00). (See ECF #3 at 1, Pg. ID 30.) On September 14, 2015, Mann
filed with the Court a deficient application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (the “Application”). (See ECF #5.) On September 15, 2015,
the Court granted Mann an extension to cure the deficiency and ordered him to
submit a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis no later than October
15, 2015 (the “September 15 Order”). (See ECF #7 at 3, Pg. ID 46.) In the
alternative, the Court gave Mann the option of paying the $400.00 fee. (See id. at
1 

2-3, Pg. ID 45-46.) On October 14, 2015, Mann filed a response to the September
15 Order which failed to cure the Application’s deficiencies. (See ECF #9.) As a
result, the Court dismissed Mann’s Complaint without prejudice on October 27,
2015 (the “Order of Dismissal”). (See ECF #10.)
After the Court issued the Order of Dismissal, Mann filed motions with the
Court in which he argued he had paid the required filing fee and asked the Court to
re-open his case.1 (See ECF ## 11, 13.) For example, on November 10, 2015,
Mann provided the Court evidence that in late October, he had $350.00 withdrawn
from his inmate account in order to pay the outstanding filing fee. (See Mann’s
Motion to Recall the Case, ECF #11 at 3, Pg. ID 67.) And the Court did in fact
receive a check from Mann for $350.00. (See Dkt.) However, it appears that
Mann may have been confused as to the correct amount he needed to pay.
Although $350.00 would be sufficient to cover the Court’s filing fee, Mann failed
to include the additional required $50.00 administrative fee. Thus, the Clerk of the
Court did not accept Mann’s payment and returned the $350.00 to him. (See id.)

1

It is unclear whether Mann attempted to pay the filing fee before or after he
received the Court’s Order of Dismissal. Mann’s says that he “received the [Order
of Dismissal] …on or about 10/25/2015.” (ECF #11 at ¶1, Pg. ID 65.) But the
Court did not even issue the Order of Dismissal until two days after Mann claims
he received it. (See ECF #10.) Thus, because it is uncertain when Mann received
the Order of Dismissal, it is at least plausible that Mann attempted to pay the filing
fee before he knew that the Court had dismissed his Complaint without prejudice.
2 

On November 30, 2015, Mann filed a Request for Status for Payment of
Costs in which he inquired whether the Court had “received payment in full for the
case at bar.” (ECF #14 at 1, Pg. ID 89.) It has not. However, it appears that Mann
has made a good-faith effort to fulfill the Court’s filing and payment requirements.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mann’s “Motion to Recall the
Case” (ECF #11) and “Motion to Remedy Default” (ECF #13) (collectively, the
“Motions”) are GRANTED IN PART as follows: The Court will grant Mann a
30-day extension from the date of this Order to pay the full $400.00 in fees to file
his Complaint. To avoid any further confusion, the Court instructs Mann that he
must pay both the $350.00 filing fee and the $50.00 administrative fee ($400.00
total), and this $400 payment must be received by the Court no later than January
10, 2016. Mann should make one single payment of $400 by the deadline, not two
separate payments (of $350 and $50). If the Court timely receives the full $400.00,
the Court will set aside the Order of Dismissal and reinstate Mann’s Complaint.
The Motions are DENIED in all other respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 10, 2015

3 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on December 10, 2015, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4