Brooks v. Garfield County Jail et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 of Magistrate Judge Suzanna Mitchell...plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is denied...plaintiff is ordered to pay the full $400. filing fee within 20 day of the date of this order or the case will be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 02/25/2014. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CLARENCE W. BROOKS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
GARFIELD CO. JAIL; JERRY NILES,
Sheriff; et al.
Defendants.

NO. CIV-13-1175-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Clarence W. Brooks, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff thereafter sought leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“ifp”) [Doc. #2]. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the matter was
referred for initial proceedings to Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell. On four occasions
Judge Mitchell ordered plaintiff to cure several deficiencies in his ifp motion, see [Doc. Nos.
7, 9, 11, & 15], advising plaintiff that if the deficiencies were not cured, she would
recommend dismissal of plaintiff’s action unless he paid the full $400 filing fee. After
multiple extensions, plaintiff had not cured the deficiencies by the date set out in Judge
Mitchell’s orders, and, therefore, in a Report and Recommendation [Doc. #18], she
recommended that plaintiff’s ifp motion be denied unless he pays the full filing fee within
twenty days of the court’s order.
Plaintiff twice objected to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that his motion
should be granted because he has been granted ifp status in two other cases pending before

1

this court, and accusing the court of prejudice against him. See [Doc. Nos. 19 & 20].
In light of plaintiff’s repeated noncompliance with Judge Mitchell’s orders, as well
as his inability to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims that jail officials are
preventing him from complying with said orders, the court concludes that plaintiff’s motion
to proceed ifp should be denied. The fact that plaintiff has been granted ifp status in separate
cases does not excuse him from complying with orders in this case.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #18] is ADOPTED, and
plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered
to pay the full $400 filing fee within twenty (20) days of the date of this order or the case
will be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of February, 2014.

2