Almond v. Pollard et al

Filing 52

DECISION and ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 9/9/2015 Dismissing Case and DENYING 43 Motion Opposing Order; DENYING 45 Motion for to Reinstate Summary Judgment; DENYING 46 Motion for Reconsideration ; DENYING 49 Motion Regarding Attorney General. (cc: all counsel and copy sent to the plaintiff by U.S. Mail on September 9, 2015) (kgw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
DWAYNE ALMOND,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-901-pp

WILLIAM POLLARD, DR. BAIRD,
DR. ENDRES, DR. JOHNSON,
DR. LUDVEGSON, N. KAMPHUIS,
MR. NESBIT, WELCOME ROSE,
CHARLES FACKTOR, MATTHEW FRANK,
and KAREN GOURLIE,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
The pro se plaintiff is incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution.
On November 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge William E. Callahan granted the
plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, determining that
because the plaintiff alleged that he was under imminent danger of serious
physical injury he could proceed in forma pauperis despite having accumulated
three “strikes,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Dkt. No. 14. On December 29, 2014,
the Clerk of Court reassigned the case to Judge Pepper. The defendants
subsequently filed a motion asking Judge Pepper to reconsider Judge
Callahan’s order granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Dkt. No. 30.
On April 29, 2015, the court denied the defendants’ motion for
reconsideration because, based on the information Magistrate Judge Callahan
1

had before him at the time he made his decision, the plaintiff’s allegations were
sufficient to allege imminent danger of serious physical injury. Dkt. No. 42. In
the same order, however, the court revoked the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
status based on information that came to light after Judge Callahan made his
decision, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the full filing fee by June 1, 2015, or
the court would dismiss the case. Dkt. No. 42 at 9. The court reasoned that the
evidence submitted, “both by the defendants . . . and by the plaintiff . . . do[es]
not support the plaintiff’s allegations that he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” Id. at 8. Rather, the “evidence indicates that prison
staff and medical professionals are monitoring and evaluating the plaintiff’s
condition (even if the court takes as true for the purposes of this order that the
plaintiff’s assertions that certain encounters with staff did not take place).” Id.
at 8-9.)
In the four months since the court issued that order, the plaintiff has not
paid the filing fee. Instead, he has filed a motion opposing the court’s order
revoking his in forma pauperis status (Dkt. No. 43), a motion to “reinstate” his
February 9, 2015, motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45), a motion
requesting the docket sheet and setting forth the defendants’ alleged
misconduct (Dkt. No. 46), a motion “showing Attorney General has
Continuously Used Prejudices and Misconduct Retaliation” (Dkt No. 49), and a
brief in support of Docket Numbers 42, 43, and 46 (Dkt. No. 50). The
defendants have filed two letters requesting that the court dismiss the case
because the plaintiff has failed to pay the full filing fee, as directed.
2

As indicated in the April order, the court has considered the parties’
evidence and determined that the plaintiff is not under imminent danger of
serious physical injury because both prison staff and medical staff are
monitoring and evaluating his mental health care needs. See Taylor v. Watkins,
623 F.3d 483, 485 (7th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff’s motion opposing the court’s
order revoking in forma pauperis (Dkt No. 42) rehashes his previous arguments
and, as a result, does not change the court’s conclusion that he is not under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court warned the plaintiff that failure to pay the full filing fee would
result in dismissal of this case. The plaintiff has not paid the full filing fee.
Therefore, the court will dismiss this case.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion opposing order (Dkt. No. 43).
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to reinstate summary judgment
motion (Dkt. No. 45).
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 46).
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion regarding Attorney General (Dkt.
No. 49).

3

The court ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED for failure to pay the
filing fee.
Dated at Milwaukee this 9th day of September, 2015.

4