Hancock v. Roscommon Co. Sheriff Dept. et al
ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-11598
HON. SEAN F. COX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ROSCOMMON COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, et. al.,
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff is an inmate confined at the Roscommon County Jail In Roscommon, Michigan.
On May 18, 2017, 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.
On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepayment of Fees or Costs. Plaintiff, however, has failed to provide this court with a written
authorization to withdraw funds from his prison trust fund account. Plaintiff has also failed to
provide the court with a certified trust account statement.
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 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).
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.
Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is initially deficient
because he failed to file an authorization to withdraw funds. The moment plaintiff filed his
complaint, he became responsible for the filing fee, and he waived any objection to the withdrawal
of funds from his trust fund account to pay court fees and costs. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.
3d at 605. Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs is deficient and
subject to dismissal because it lacks the requisite authorization form. See Lindsey v. Roman, 408
Fed. Appx. 530, 533 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff has also failed to provide the Court with a signed certification regarding trust fund
account. An uncertified trust fund account statement, or one that lacks a signature, is insufficient
to satisfy the filing requirements for permitting a prisoner to proceed in forma pauperis under §
1915(a)(2), nor would it cure the deficiency in this case. See Hart v. Jaukins, 99 Fed. App’x. 208,
209-10 (10th Cir. 2004); See also Moore v. Vantifflin, No. 2009 WL 224548, * 1 (E.D. Mich.
January 30, 2009).
Finally, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a current computerized trust fund
statement of account showing the history of the financial transactions in his institutional trust fund
account for the past six months. Plaintiff’s complaint is thus subject to dismissal for lack of
prosecution because of his failure to correct the deficiency by providing the Court a copy of his
computerized prison trust fund account for the past six months. See Davis v. United States, 73 Fed.
App’x. 804, 805 (6th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff has failed to correct the deficiency in this case. Because Plaintiff has failed to
comply with the deficiency order, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for want
of prosecution based upon Plaintiff’s failure to fully comply with the deficiency order. See e.g. Erby
v. Kula, 113 Fed. App’x. 74, 75-76 (6th Cir. 2004).
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.
Dated: July 11, 2017
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge
I hereby certify that on July 11, 2017, the foregoing document was served on counsel of record via
electronic means and upon Donny Hancock via First Class mail at the address below:
Donny Hancock 83813
Roscommon County Jail
111 S. 2nd St.
Roscommon, MI 48653
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?