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)

Download PDF
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?