Lacy v. Cole et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying as moot 23 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; denying 24 Motion to Compel; signed by Judge William C Griesbach on 04/27/2012. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Johnny Lacy) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JOHNNY LACY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 11-CV-1084
CHARLES COLE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND MOTION TO COMPEL

This case was dismissed, effective March 1, 2012, because the plaintiff failed to submit the
$350.00 filing fee prior to that date. Judgment was entered on March 6, 2012, and the plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal. In an Order entered April 17, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit noted the plaintiff’s three “strikes” under 29 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and directed him to
pay the $455.00 in required fees by May 1, 2012. The Seventh Circuit warned the plaintiff that his
appeal would be dismissed if he does not timely pay the required fees. Now before me are two
motions the plaintiff has filed in this Court.
First, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. However, this
motion will be denied as moot because the Seventh Circuit has already made a determination
regarding the plaintiff’s appellate filing fee.
Second, the plaintiff has filed a motion to compel the defendant to provide the plaintiff with
meaningful access to the courts. He seeks a court order directing the warden to provide him with

a legal loan of up to $100.00 and suggests that the denial of his legal loan is retaliatory. This issue
is not relevant in this closed case, and the motion will be denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 23) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 24) is
DENIED.
Dated this

27th

day of April, 2012.

s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach
United States District Judge

2