Reeves v. Metropolitan Detention Center of Brooklyn et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: This action is dismissed without prejudice, provided that plaintiff complies with all applicable laws and rules that are preconditions to filing. So Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 7/2/2015. (c/m; fwd'd for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

MICHAEL DUKE REEVES,

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER

-against-

15-CV-3262 (ENV)

METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER OF
BROOKLYN, WARDEN OF METROPOLITAN
DETENTION CENTER BROOKLYN, CASE
MANAGER JOHN DOE JANE DOE, ABC
CORPORATION, and XYC CORPORATION,
Defendants.
x

VITALIANO, D.J.
On May 29, 2015, pro se plaintiff Michael Duke Reeves, currently
detained at the Orange County Jail in Goshen, New York, commenced this
action, pursuant to 42U.S.C.§1983. However, plaintiff did not include a
Prisoner Authorization form in support of his application to proceed in forma

pauperis ("IFP"). The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires an incarcerated
plaintiff, who has not paid the filing fee, and seeking to proceed IFP, not only
to submit an IFP application but also a Prisoner Authorization form with the
filing fee to be paid in installments. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(2) and (b)(l).
Failure to do so is grounds for dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint. See

Razzoli v. Exec. Office of U.S. Marshals, No. 10-CV-4269 (CBA), 2010 WL
5051083, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2010).
By letter dated June 4, 2015, the Clerk's Office provided Reeves with a
Prisoner Authorization form and advised him that, in order for his case to
proceed, he must return a signed Prisoner Authorization form within 14 days
from receipt of the letter. To date, Reeves has not filed a signed Prisoner
Authorization. Instead, on June 15, 2015, Reeves filed a second application to
proceed IFP, which does not comply with the Clerk's letter directing plaintiff
to file a signed Prisoner Authorization form.
Conclusion
For these reasons, this action is dismissed without prejudice, provided
that plaintiff complies with all applicable laws and rules that are
preconditions to filing.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in f orma
pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

2

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
July 2, 2015
s/Eric N. Vitaliano

ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Judge

3