Tennessee Prisoners v. Parker

Filing 25

Notice Of Payment of Filing Fee (ECF Nos. 12, 13 & 14);And Order Finding That The Motion For Extension (ECF No. 9) & The In Forma Pauperis Motion (ECF No. 15) Are Moot, And Dismissing All Claims By Coffey, Hervey, Jones & Merritt

Download PDF
Case 2:20-cv-02781-JTF-atc Document 25 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 77 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION MARVIN GREEN, ANTHONY HERVEY, JAMES JONES, KENDRICK MERRITT, NATHANIEL WILMOTH, THOMAS PRUITT, and JEFFREY COFFEY, Plaintiffs, v. TONY PARKER, F/N/U SELLERS, AND TAUREAN JAMES, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:20-cv-02781-JTF-atc NOTICE OF PAYMENT OF FILING FEE (ECF NOS. 12, 13 & 14) AND ORDER FINDING THAT THE MOTION FOR EXTENSION (ECF NO. 9) & THE IN FORMA PAUPERIS MOTION (ECF NO. 15) ARE MOOT; AND DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS BY COFFEY, HERVEY, JONES & MERRITT Before the Court for consideration are: (1) Marvin Green’s, Thomas Pruitt’s, and Nathaniel Wilmoth’s submissions of proportionate shares of the civil filing fee (ECF Nos. 12, 13 & 14); (2) Green, Pruitt, and Wilmoth’s motion for extension to pay the filing fee (ECF No. 9); and (3) Anthony Hervey’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 15). For the reasons explained below: (1) the Clerk is directed to reflect on the docket the full payment of the civil filing fee; (2) the motion for extension (ECF No. 9) and the in forma pauperis motion (ECF No. 15) are denied as moot; and (3) all claims of Coffey, Hervey, Jones, and Merritt in this case are dismissed. Case 2:20-cv-02781-JTF-atc Document 25 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 3 (1) Filing fees: PageID 78 On December 3, 2020, this Court entered an Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Signatures and Payment of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a)-(b)’s Civil Filing Fee, And Directing Clerk To Send Plaintiffs Certain Forms. (ECF No. 8.) Among its other provisions, that Order directed each of Plaintiffs Green, Hervey, Jones, Merritt, Wilmoth, Pruitt, and Coffey to either pay their respective shares of the entire civil filing fee or properly apply for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at PageID 12-13.) On December 23, 2020, the Court granted Green, Pruitt, and Wilmoth an extension to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 11.) On December 28, 2020, the Clerk of this Court received the following: (1) $125 case initiation fee paid by Green (ECF No. 12); (2) $125 case initiation fee paid by Pruitt (ECF No. 13); and (3) $150 case initiation fee paid by Wilmoth (ECF No. 14). Notice of FULL SATISFACTION of the filing fee is hereby NOTED on the docket of this case. No further filing fee payments from any of the Plaintiffs are required. (2) In forma pauperis motion: On December 29, 2020, Hervey filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 15.) Since the filing fee has been paid in full as described supra, Hervey’s motion (ECF No. 15) is DENIED as moot. To the extent that Green, Hervey and Pruitt’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 23) similarly seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it is DENIED as moot for this same reason. (3) Plaintiffs’ Changes Of Address: This Court’s December 3 notified all Plaintiffs of their duty to keep the Court updated of their present address. (ECF No. 8 at PageID 12.) On December 4, 2020, the Clerk mailed the Court’s December 3, 2020 order to all Plaintiffs. On January 4-5, 2020, the mailed copies of that order were returned undeliverable as to Coffey (ECF No. 19), Hervey (ECF No. 20), Jones (ECF No. 21), and Merritt (ECF Nos. 22 & 24). 2 Case 2:20-cv-02781-JTF-atc Document 25 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 79 The most basic responsibility of a litigant is to keep the Court apprised of his whereabouts. All Plaintiffs in this case were expressly directed to notify the Court of any address changes and were warned of the consequences of non-compliance. (ECF No. 8.) Nevertheless, Coffey, Hervey, Jones, and Merritt have failed to do so; it appears they have abandoned their claims in this action. Accordingly, all of Coffey’s, Hervey’s, Jones’s, and Merritt’s claims in this case are DISMISSED for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) (plaintiffs have “an affirmative duty to supply the court with notice of any and all changes in address”); Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451, 454 (6th Cir. 1991) (failure to comply with the Court’s order to notify of address changes constitutes “bad faith or contumacious conduct” in failing to prosecute). Coffey, Hervey, Jones, and Merritt have offered nothing that suggests their failure to comply with the Court’s orders was due to inability, rather than willfulness or bad faith. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of January, 2021. s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr. JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?