Fulson v. Anderson et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for scheduling order (Doc. 36) and motion for payment plan (Doc. 37) are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on August 3, 2017. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
ANDRE L. FULSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TAMARA ANDERSON, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:16-CV-78 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on plaintiff’s motion for scheduling order and
motion for payment plan.
Plaintiff’s motion for a scheduling order is denied because it is premature.
Once each of the defendants has answered the complaint, the Court will enter a
Case Management Order. The Case Management Order will provide the schedule
for discovery. Until that time, the parties may not engage in discovery. E.D. Mo.
L.R. 16 - 5.01, 16 - 5.04.
The motion for a payment plan is denied because it is unnecessary. Section
1915(b) does not provide a mechanism for collecting filing fees after a prisoner is
released. Nor does it require a former prisoner to refile for in forma pauperis
status. So, plaintiff does not need to submit any further payments to the Court.

However, if plaintiff is readmitted to the Missouri Department of Corrections in
the future, the institution will collect the remainder of the filing fee.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for scheduling order
(Doc. 36) and motion for payment plan (Doc. 37) are DENIED.
Dated this 3rd day of August, 2017.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2