Li v. Pugh et al

Filing 8

Memorandum Opinion and Order The Motion to Exempt is denied, and this action is dismissed without prejudice. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997). Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 1/29/2013. (S,L)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
XIANG LI,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL PUGH, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:12cv2829

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Regarding ECF Nos. 1, 5]

This “mandamus” action was filed on November 13, 2013. The Complaint seeks relief
based upon a host of allegedly adverse conditions at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Institution,
including law library access, medical treatment, and grievance and disciplinary procedures. ECF
No. 1 at 1-31. In an entry dated December 28, 2013, Plaintiff was ordered, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), to either pay the full filing fee or file a proper Financial Application and
prisoner account statement within 30 days. Although that 30 day period has expired, Plaintiff has
not sought additional time and has neither paid the filing fee nor filed a proper Financial
Application with a copy of his prisoner account.1
On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to be Exempted from PLRA as Writ of
Mandamus does not Constitute a Civil Action.” ECF No. 5. The Motion is not well taken. The
Prison Litigation Reform Act filing fee requirements apply to cases styled as mandamus actions
when those actions seek relief analogous to civil complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the
instant case clearly does. Misiak v. Freeh, 22 Fed.Appx. 384, 386 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2001); see
1

On January 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed an incomplete Financial Application (ECF No. 7)
and did not sent a copy of his prisoner account statement.

(4:12cv2829)
also, In re Grant, 635 F.3d 1227, 1230-31 (D.C. Cir. 2011)(PLRA fee requirements applied to
mandamus action filed in connection with civil action).
Accordingly, the Motion to Exempt is denied, and this action is dismissed without
prejudice. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997). Further, the Court
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken
in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 29, 2013
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

2