Chance v. Tennessee Department Correction et al

Filing 12

ORDER: This action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with the orders of the court, and for want of prosecution. Because an appeal would NOT be taken in good faith, the plaintiff is NOT certified to appeal the judgment of the court in forma pauperis. Entry of this order shall constitute the judgment in this action. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 6/30/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
STEVEN RAY CHANCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:11-cv-00250
Judge Trauger

ORDER
The plaintiff, an inmate at the SPR-Hardeman County Correctional Center in Whiteville,
Tennessee, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No. 1).

Because the plaintiff is a “three-striker” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court
denied the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) and ordered the
plaintiff to submit the full civil filing fee of three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00) within thirty
(30) days of the court’s order of March 29, 2011. (Docket No. 4). The court advised the plaintiff
that he could request an extension of time within which to submit the full civil filing fee if such a
request was made within thirty (30) days of the court’s prior order. (Id. at p. 5).
The plaintiff then filed a timely motion for a continuance (Docket No. 7), in which the
plaintiff sought an ninety (90) day extension of time within which to submit the full civil filing fee.
The plaintiff stated that his sentence would expire on May 23, 2011, and that he would need “at least
thirty (30) days to gather the necessary funds up to ensure all cost[s] are paid in full.” (Id.) The
plaintiff further stated that he intended to prosecute “this claim to the fullest.” (Id.)

By order entered on April 14, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 7)

insofar as the court granted the plaintiff until June 23, 2011 to submit the full civil filing fee.
(Docket No. 9). The court advised the plaintiff that, given the lengthy nature of his requested
extension, no further extensions would be granted for any reason. (Id. at p. 2). The court explicitly
warned the plaintiff that failure to submit the full civil filing fee by June 23, 2011, would result in
this action being dismissed. (Id.)
Although the court’s record indicate that the plaintiff received the court’s order on April 21,
2011 (Docket No. 11), to date, the plaintiff has not submitted the civil filing fee. Therefore, this
action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with the orders of the court, and for want of
prosecution. Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.; see Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962); Knoll
v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999). Because an appeal would NOT be taken
in good faith, the plaintiff is NOT certified to appeal the judgment of the court in forma pauperis.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Entry of this order shall constitute the judgment in this action.
It is so ORDERED.
__________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge

2