Showers v. Wayne County
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 17-cv-13035
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MONA K. MAJZOUB
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff is an inmate confined at the Wayne County Jail in Detroit, Michigan.
On September 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an order of
deficiency. Dkt. No. 2. This order 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. See id. Alternatively, the order allowed Plaintiff to
pay the four hundred ($ 400.00) dollar filing fee in full. Id. The order gave Plaintiff
thirty days to comply. Id.
On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs. Dkt. No. 4. 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. The account statement must include 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) (overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)).
Sometimes an inmate does not pay the full filing fee and fails to provide an
affidavit of indigency or a certified trust account statement to the court. When this
happens, “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, “the 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
Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is
initially deficient because he failed to file an authorization to withdraw funds. When
plaintiff filed his complaint, he became responsible for the filing fee. See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d at 605. Plaintiff therefore waived any objection to the
withdrawal of funds from his trust fund account to pay court fees and costs. Id.
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 F. App’x. 530, 532–33 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff has also failed to provide the Court with a signed certification of his
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 F. App’x. 208, 209–10 (10th Cir. 2004); see also
Moore v. Vantifflin, No. 2:08-CV-15168, 2009 WL 224548, at * 1 (E.D. Mich.
January 30, 2009).
Finally, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a current computerized
trust fund 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. U.S., 73 F. App’x. 804, 805 (6th Cir. 2003); Patterson v.
Mackie, No. 13-15149, 2014 WL 1478437, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2014).
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 Erby v. Kula, 113 F. App’x. 74, 75–76 (6th
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: November 30, 2017
/s/Gershwin A Drain
Hon. Gershwin A. Drain
United States District Court Judge
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?