Perry v. Crews et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for extension of time Doc. # 8 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on a court-provided form no later than January 14, 2014. IT IS H EREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall either pay the $350 filingfee or submit a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis no later than January 14, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. If the case is dismissed, the dismissal will not constitute a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).( Response to Court due by 1/14/2014.) Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/9/13. (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARK R. PERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
T. CREWS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV1883 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file his
amended complaint on a court-form, as well as an accompanying motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks an extension up to and including
January 14, 2014. The Court will grant plaintiff’s request.1
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time
[Doc. #8] is GRANTED.

1

Plaintiff states in his motion for extension of time that he has filed a
“motion to correct judgment and/or motion to correct mistake” in Perry v.
Luebbers, No. 4:11CV158 RWS. The case cited by plaintiff was dismissed by this
Court, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case does not contain any pending motions for relief from judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint on a court-provided form no later than January 14, 2014.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall either pay the $350 filing
fee or submit a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis no later than January
14, 2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to comply with this
Order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. If the case is
dismissed, the dismissal will not constitute a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Dated this 9th day of December, 2013.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-