Barfell v. Beaman et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 4/15/2013. Action DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Motions terminated: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Thomas Barfell)(cb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN THOMAS H. L. BARFELL, Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 13-CV-283 NICHOLAS BEAMAN, SGT. APRIL NETZEL, CARRIE KOEPP, MELISSA KROKSTROM, JENNIFER WEBER, BECKY SAWICKI, MELISSA RASMUSSEN, JEFF MEYER, MATTHEW WEISS, HOLLY TUTTLE, MEGAN, CHARLES MAROUSEK, ANDREW SCHWERKE, TERI PETRI, DAVID KASPER, JOHN PENZA, KENNETH DANIELS, N. MANTTY, HANDY, MARY SEIDEL, CAROLYN FURMAN, and WINNEBAGO COUNTY JAIL, Defendants. ORDER The plaintiff, Thomas H. L. Barfell, who is proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By order dated March 18, 2013, the plaintiff was ordered to forward to the Clerk of Court by April 8, 2013, the sum of $1.33 as an initial partial filing fee in this action. The plaintiff was advised that, upon payment of this fee, the court would determine whether the action can proceed in forma pauperis. To date the plaintiff has not paid this partial filing fee. From this failure to pay the initial filing fee this court infers that the plaintiff no longer wants to prosecute this action. Therefore, the court will dismiss this case without prejudice. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this action be and hereby is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 15th day of April, 2013. SO ORDERED, HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA U. S. District Judge 2

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?