Patterson v. Schott et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 5/12/2017: DENYING 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal and DISMISSING case without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Adrian Duran Patterson at Waupun Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ADRIAN DURAN PATTERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-444-JPS

JOHN L. SCHOTT, MICHAEL
FLANNERY, ERIN TISCHER,
MATTHEW GADZALINSKI, and
JEFFREY PAUTZKE,

ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution,
filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his civil rights
were violated. (Docket #1). On March 27, 2017, he filed a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket #2). On April 11, 2017, the Court
determined that Plaintiff has accrued at least three strikes under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that his
allegations did not suggest that he was in imminent danger of serious
physical injury. (Docket #7). The Court therefore denied him leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Id. The Court gave Plaintiff twenty-one days to
pay the $400.00 filing fee in full or have his case dismissed. Id.
That deadline has passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.
Despite raising meritless protestations about his strikes and other
extraneous matters, see (Docket #8, #9, #10, and #11), he has ignored the

1

Court’s instruction that this case cannot proceed without full payment of
the filing fee. As a result, the Court is obliged to dismiss the complaint
without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fee. Civ. L. R. 41(c).1
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (Docket #10) be
and the same are hereby DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be and the same is
hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the
filing fee.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 12th day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

In his latest motion, Plaintiff requests that the undersigned recuse from
further consideration of his case. (Docket #10). He cites a certification from the
Wisconsin Department of Justice that he does not appear to have three strikes,
reasoning that this Court must have fabricated that finding out of bias against
him. (Docket #11 at 1–2). However, the fact that the state authorities have not
consulted federal court records from 1996 does not alter the conclusion that,
based on the Court’s review of its own records, Plaintiff acquired three strikes
long ago. The motion for recusal is based on Plaintiff’s misapprehension of the
facts, and it must be denied.
1

2