Hopkins v. Stolle et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 8/3/17. (Copy Mailed to Plaintiff).(jtho, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

D

[L

AUG - 3 2017

ISAIAH HOPKINS,

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff,

RICHMOND. VA

V.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV246

KEN STOLLE, et aL,
Defendants.

MEMOR.\NDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate, has submitted this civil action. He also has applied to
proceed informa paitperis. By Memorandum Order entered on April 11, 2017, the Court

conditionally docketed the action. The Court directed Plaintiff to complete and return an in

forma pauperis affidavit and a consent to collection of fees form within thirty (30) days of the
date of entry thereof. Plaintiff returned a completed informa pauperis affidavit, but returned a
consent to collection of fees form that was blank and lacked a signature of Plaintiff. By

Memorandum Order entered on May 2,2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to return a signed
consent to collection of fees form to the Court. On May 4, 2017, the Court received PlaintifTs
Notice of Change of Address. By Memorandum Order entered on May 12, 2017, the Court
again attempted to have Plaintiff sign and return a consent to collection of fees form. On May
31, 2017, the United States Postal Service returned the May 12, 2017 Memorandum Order
because Plaintiff had moved without updating his address with the Court. However, the
institution marked the envelope with a note that Plaintiff was now incarcerated in St. Brides
Correctional Center.

Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on June 19, 2017, the Clerk again mailed
Plaintiff a consent to collection of fees form to St. Brides Correctional Center. The Court

directed Plaintiff to affirm his intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning the

form. The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to comply with the above directive within eleven

(11) days of the date of entry thereof would result in summary dismissal of the action.
Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's order to return a consent to collection of fees
form. As a result, he does not qualify for informa paitperis status. Furthermore, he has not paid

the statutory filing fee for the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Plaintiffs conduct
demonstrates a willful failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, this action
will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

M. Hannah Lau

ii,P

Date:

o

- 3 2017

Richmond, Virginia

United States Difst ici Judge