United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
HENRY L. EDMONDS, PLAINTIFF,
MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO, DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28, 2019, pro se plaintiff Henry L. Edmonds
(“Edmonds”) filed a complaint against Mahoning
County, Ohio, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
allegations in the complaint concern what Edmonds
characterizes as his illegal detention by Mahoning County.
Edmonds seeks $275, 000.00 in damages. He is confined at the
Lorain Correctional Institution in Grafton, Ohio. (Doc. No.
1.) For the reasons that follow, this action is dismissed.
filed a motion to proceed with this action in forma
pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) Magistrate Judge George Limbert
determined that the motion was deficient and, on July 1,
2019, ordered Edmonds to either pay the filing fee or
complete and file the financial application attached thereto.
(Doc. No. 3.) The deficiency order provided Edmonds with 30
days to comply, and expressly warned that “[f]ailure to
comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action
without further notice.” (Id. at
1, 2019, a copy of the deficiency order was mailed to Edmonds
at his address of record. There is no indication on the
docket that the mailing was returned to the Court as
undeliverable. Edmonds has not responded to the deficiency
Law and Analysis
case is subject to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
regarding prisoner in forma pauperis civil actions.
See Jackson v. Mich. Parole Bd., No. 06-CV-11666,
2006 WL 1452112, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 24, 2006) (Congress
primarily targeted prisoner civil rights cases when it
enacted the filing fee provision of the Prisoner Litigation
Reform Act.). When a prisoner files a civil rights action, he
must pay the filing fee. “[T]he only issue is whether
the inmate pays the entire fee at the initiation of the
proceedings or over a period of time under an installment
plan. Prisoners are no longer entitled to a waiver of fees
and costs.'” Jones v. White, No. 10-15156,
2014 WL 238169, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2014) (quoting
In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131,
1131 (6th Cir. 1997)).
deficiency order issued by Magistrate Judge Limbert required
Edmonds to comply with the statute's requirements in
order to proceed with this action without the full prepayment
of fees. See McCullough v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,
No. 13-10282, 2013 WL 2147001, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 16,
2013) (“Submission of [a] sufficient affidavit and a
certified trust fund account in accordance with the statute
are statutory requirements for proceeding in forma
pauperis.”) (citing McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997)
(overruled on other grounds)). If a prisoner fails to comply
with a court's deficiency order, his case is subject to
dismissal. See In re Prison Litigation Reform Act,
105 F.3d at 1132 (If a prisoner does not comply with the
court's instructions regarding payment of fees or filing
for pauper status, the court shall presume the prisoner is
not a pauper, assess the fee, and dismiss the case for want
of prosecution.); Hill v. Lucas Cty. Common Pleas
Court, 190 F.Supp.3d 732, 732 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
(dismissing case without prejudice where plaintiff failed to
comply with a deficiency order).
this case was filed, Edmonds did not pay the filing fee or
submit the required statutory documentation to proceed in
forma pauperis. Magistrate Judge Limbert notified
Edmonds of the deficiency, provided him with 30 days to pay
the filing fee or correct the deficiency, and warned that
failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action
without further notice. Edmonds did not comply with the
deficiency order, seek an extension of time to do so, or
provide the Court with any explanation as to why he could not
this case is dismissed without prejudice for want of
prosecution for failing to comply with the deficiency order.
Erby v. Kula, 113 Fed.Appx. 74, 76 (6th Cir. 2004)
(dismissal of § 1983 action for failure to comply with
the court's deficiency order was not an abuse of
discretion where the order identified the required
documentation to proceed in forma pauperis and
warned that failure to comply with the order may result in
dismissal); Davis v. United States, 73 Fed.Appx.
804, 805 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of prisoner
civil action for want of prosecution for failure to comply
with deficiency order notifying plaintiff of the required
documents and granting him 30 days to comply).
the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed without
prejudice. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be
taken in good faith.