Murphy v. Washington et al

Filing 11

Opinion and Order Dismissing #1 Complaint. Signed by District Judge Susan K. DeClercq. (LVer)

24UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:24-cv-10945
Honorable Susan K. DeClercq
United States District Judge

HEIDI WASHINGTON et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Timothy Murphy, confined at G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in
Jackson, Michigan, initiated a pro se case in March 2024. He sought redress under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his rights as guaranteed by the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Murphy v. Washington,
No. 2:24-CV-10735, 2024 WL 1354392, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2024).
He applied “to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs,” but his case
was “dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A)” because
the statement from his prisoner trust fund demonstrated that he had “sufficient funds
to pay the full amount of the filing fee.” Id. at *1–3.
“If the case is dismissed under these circumstances, it is not to be reinstated
to the district court’s active docket”—even if the plaintiff attempts to pay the filing
fees. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on

other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007); Redd v. Redmon, 215
F.3d 1327 (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision) (holding that McGore applies
to cases dismissed “under § 1915(e)(2)(A)”); see also Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486,
489 (6th Cir. 2002) (same “where the district court dismisses cases sua sponte under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A”), abrogated on other grounds by Jones, 549 U.S. 199; Boussum
v. Washington, 655 F. Supp. 3d 636, 642 (E.D. Mich. 2023) (same for cases
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)).
Despite this limitation, Murphy refiled the identical complaint. Compare ECF
No. 1, with Murphy v. Washington, No. 2:24-CV-10735 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2024),
ECF No. 1. He now admits to having the necessary funds to cover the filing fee, see
ECF No. 10 at PageID.28, yet he has declined to do so. In any event, this fact is
irrelevant because payment or nonpayment of the fee does not alter the requirement
that this case must be dismissed under controlling legal precedent. Redd, 215 F.3d
at 1327 (citing McGore, 114 F.3d at 605).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is
DISMISSED. See FED R. CIV. P. 41(b).
Dated: May 9, 2024

/s/Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge

-2-