Douglas, Roderick v. Wall, Edward et al

Filing 8

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution. The clerk's office shall terminate all pending motions and close this case. Douglas may seek leave to re-open this case only if he pays the filing fee or submits a certified trust fund account statement within ten days. Otherwise, Douglas must re-file his complaint as a new case. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/7/2013. (jef),(ps)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RODERICK D. DOUGLAS, Plaintiff, ORDER 13-cv-30 l-wmc v. EDWARD WALL, et ai., Defendants. State inmate Roderick D. Douglas filed a proposed civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.c. ยง 1983, concerning the conditions of his confinement. On May 6,2013, the court ordered him to either pay the filing fee or submit a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account for the previous six months on or before May 28, 2013, in compliance with the federal in forma pauperis statute and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. To date, Douglas has failed to comply as directed. Accordingly, under the inherent power necessarily vested in a court to manage its own docket, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. See FED. R. ClY. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Ohio River Co. v. Carrillo, 754 F.2d 236, 2?8 n.5 (7th Cir. 1984). 1 ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The complaint filed by plaintiff Roderick D. Douglas is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. The clerk's office shall terminate all pending motions and close this case. 2. Douglas may seek leave to re-open this case only if he pays the filing fee or submits a certified trust fund account statement within ten days. Otherwise, Douglas must re-file his complaint as a new case. Entered this 7th day ofJune, 2013. 2

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?