Crawford v. Schuette et al
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SEANDERYL ANTONIO CRAWFORD,
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-10062
HONORABLE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
BILL SCHUETTE, et. al.,
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff is an inmate confined at the Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon
Heights, Michigan. On January 18, 2013, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an
order of deficiency, which required plaintiff to provide 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
three hundred and fifty ($ 350.00) dollar filing fee in full. Plaintiff was given thirty days
to comply with the order. To date, plaintiff has neither corrected the deficiency nor paid
the $ 350.00 filing fee.
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.
In the present case, plaintiff has 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).
In addition, 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 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
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.
s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: March 6, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
of record on this date, March 6, 2013, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.
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?