Gulley, Dominique v. Ehlke, Stephen
ORDER on ifp request: Complaint taken under advisement for screening. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 12/22/2011. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DOMINIQUE T. GULLEY,
HONORABLE JUDGE STEPHEN ERIC EHLKE,
Plaintiff Dominique Gulley, a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility
Correctional Institution in Boscobel, Wisconsin, has submitted a proposed complaint. He
requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. From plaintiff's trust fund account statement, it
appears that plaintiff presently has no means with which to pay an initial partial payment of the
$350 fee for filing his complaint. However, plaintiff should be aware that he is obligated to pay
the $350 filing fee, even if this court determines that he will not be permitted to proceed with
his complaint in forma pauperis and even if he does not presently have funds with which to pay
the fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). His account will be monitored and the fee must be taken in
monthly installments when the funds exist.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint is taken under advisement. As
soon as the court's calendar permits, plaintiffs complaint will be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) to determine whether the case must be dismissed either because the complaint is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which rellef may be granted or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Plaintiff will be notified promptly
when such a decision has been made.
Further, the Clerk of Court is requested to insure that th~ court's financial records reflect
that plaintiff Dominique Gulley owes the $350 fee for filing this case, in accordance with the
requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
~ '"2- J
day of December, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
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?