Vaughn v. Litscher et al
Filing
28
ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/27/2017. Action DISMISSED without prejudice. 18 Plaintiff's MOTION to Appoint Counsel DENIED as moot. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Treon D. Vaughn at Kenosha County Detention Center)(jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TREON D. VAUGHN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-CV-1486-JPS
JON LITSCHER, EDWARD WALL, HEISE,
CATHY JESS, J. PAQUIN, WARDEN
BOUGHTON, WARDEN KEMPER, A. ALT,
J. GUNDERSON, S. KOENER, PAIGE
O’CONNOR, STEPHANIE PIPIA, J.
LINDOW, CAPTAIN T. WIEGAND, K.
MARKS, J. ALDANA, KUSTMAN,
MORRISON, MINK, and GARDNER,
Defendants.
TREON D. VAUGHN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-CV-1499-JPS
DEPUTY SHERIFF MCCOY, JON MASON,
JAMES FITZGERALD, GEOFFREY
DROWSE, MARY K. WAGNER, KENOSHA
COUNTY CLERK OF COURT, OFFICER
SORENSON, CLERK HANEY, DETECTIVE
DEWITT, ROBERT D. ZAPF, DANIEL
TUMBASCO, EMILY TERGY, ANDREW
BURGOYNE, DAVID BERMAN, CHAD
KERKMAN, DAVID BASTIANELLI, and
MS. WAGNER’S CLERK,
Defendants.
TREON D. VAUGHN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-CV-1557-JPS
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT,
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS,
STUART GRAHAM, DIANE M.
FREMGEN, and J. DENIS MORAN,
ORDER
Defendants.
Before the Court are three separate actions filed by the same plaintiff,
Treon D. Vaughn, a prisoner at the Kenosha County Jail. In each of his three
lawsuits, Plaintiff proceeds pro se and has filed a motion for leave to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee. Although given multiple opportunities
to do so, he repeatedly failed to follow the appropriate procedures for
demonstrating to the Court that he was indigent. The Court detailed the
history of Plaintiff’s failures in prior orders, and will not repeat that narrative
here. Ultimately, the Court was forced to deny him in forma pauperis status.
The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee in each
of these three actions no later than January 19, 2017, or each of them would
be dismissed without prejudice. Again, he has ignored the Court’s
instructions and has not paid the filing fee in any of these cases. Having given
Plaintiff every reasonable opportunity to pursue this litigation, the Court is
obligated to dismiss each case without prejudice for failure to comply with
its orders and for failure to pay the filing fees. See Civ. L. R. 41(c); Fischer v.
Cingular Wireless, LLC, 446 F.3d 663, 665 (7th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly,
Page 2 of 3
IT IS ORDERED that each of the above-captioned actions be and the
same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pending motions for
appointment of counsel in each of the above-captioned actions be and the
same are hereby DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 27th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 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?