Williams v. Raynor Rensch & Pfieffer et al

Filing 116

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on the Plaintiff's untimely Notice of Appeal of Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment 89 . Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal of the Court's March 29, 2012, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment is untimely. The Clerk of the court shall not process this Notice of Appeal. With regard to plaintiffs Notice of Appeal of the Courts December 14, 2012, Memorandum and Order, plaintiff shall have until March 8, 2013, to either submit the $455.00 appellate filing fee or a motion to proceed IFP, with the required affidavit. If plaintiff takes no action, his appeal will not be processed. Plaintiff is reminded that the Prison Litigation Reform Act makes the prisoner liable for payment of the full $45 5.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The clerk of the court shall not process plaintiffs Notice of Appeal of the Courts December 14, 2012, Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 91 ), until further order of the Court. The clerk of the court is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the parties and to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SHANNON WILLIAMS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
REYNOR RENSCH & PFIEFFER,
)
TERRY HADDOCK, JOHN STUCK,
)
JOHN BRAZDA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:11CV446

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s untimely
Notice of Appeal of the Court’s March 29, 2012, Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Judgment (Filing No. 89).

This Notice of

Appeal is untimely because it was filed more than 10 months after
the Court’s Judgment.

(See Filing Nos. 59 and 89.)

Also pending is plaintiff’s timely filed Notice of
Appeal of the Court’s December 14, 2012, Memorandum and Order
(Filing No. 91.)

However, plaintiff did not submit the $455.00

appellate filing fee, nor did he submit a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”).

(See Filing No. 98.)

Plaintiff was not

previously given leave to proceed IFP in the district court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal of the Court’s March

29, 2012, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment (Filing No.
89) is untimely.
Notice of Appeal.

The clerk of the court shall not process this

2.

With regard to plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal of the

Court’s December 14, 2012, Memorandum and Order, plaintiff shall
have until March 8, 2013, to either submit the $455.00 appellate
filing fee or a motion to proceed IFP, with the required
affidavit.

If plaintiff takes no action, his appeal will not be

processed.
3.

Plaintiff is reminded that the Prison Litigation

Reform Act makes the prisoner liable for payment of the full
$455.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the
appeal.

An incarcerated civil appellant is required to pay the

full amount of the $455.00 filing fee by making monthly payments
to the Court, even if he is proceeding in forma pauperis.

28

U.S.C. § 1915(b).
4.

The clerk of the court shall not process

plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal of the Court’s December 14, 2012,
Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 91), until further order of the
Court.

-2-

5.

The clerk of the court is directed to forward a

copy of this Memorandum and Order to the parties and to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
DATED this 11th

day of February, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

* This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their Web sites. The Court accepts no
responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion
of the Court.
-3-