United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff Felix Jose Arimont ("Plaintiff), a
state prisoner, filed this action against defendant Adult
Parole Authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that his confinement violates various rights under the United
States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks relief in excess of One
Million Dollars. (Docket # 1).
reasons that follow, this case is dismissed without
Plaintiff filed this action he did not pay the filing fee.
Instead, he filed a motion to proceed with this action in
forma pauperis. (Docket # 2). Magistrate Judge Jonathan
Greenberg determined that Plaintiffs motion failed to comply
with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), issued an
order advising Plaintiff of the deficiencies, and attached
the required Financial Application (Docket #3-1) for
Plaintiff to complete and file. (Docket # 3). The magistrate
judge warned Plaintiff that failure to fully and timely
comply with the requirements of the order within 30 days may
result in dismissal of this action without further notice.
responded to the deficiency order, but did not comply.
(Docket #4). Plaintiff did not file the required Financial
Application, consisting of the affidavit of prisoner and
acknowledgement of understanding, along with a certified
prisoner account statement for the prior six-month period.
(See Docket # 3-1). Instead, Plaintiff simply filed
a prisoner account statement for the time period 12/08/17
-12/18/17. (Docket # 4). Plaintiff did not indicate any
reason that he could not fully comply with the requirements
of the deficiency order, or seek an extension of time to do
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 ("PLRA").). 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)). "The
Sixth Circuit has., .held that the fee requirements of the
PLRA do not deprive prisoners their right to access the
courts, nor do they deprive the prisoner his right to freedom
of expression, equal protection, procedural or substantive
due process, or double jeopardy." McCullough v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, No. 13-10282, 2013 WL 2147001, at *2
(E.D. Mich. May 16, 2013) (citing Hampton v. Hobbs,
106 F.3d 1281 (6th Cir. 1997)).
deficiency order required Plaintiff to comply with the
statute's requirements in order to proceed with this
action without the full prepayment of fees. Id. at *
1 ("Submission of [a] sufficient affidavit and a
certified trust fund account [for the immediately preceding
6-month period] 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. Erby v. Kula, 113 Fed.Appx. 74, 76 (6th
Cir. 2004) (affirming district court's dismissal of a
prisoner's § 1983 action for want of prosecution for
failing to comply with a deficiency order that clearly
identified the documentation required and expressly warned
that failure to comply may result in dismissal) (citing
McGore, 114 F.3d at 605) (further citation omitted);
see also 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).
case, the deficiency order contained specific instructions
and attached a copy of the required Financial Application for
Plaintiff to complete if he was unable to pay the full filing
fee. Plaintiff failed to complete and file the entire
Financial Application, including a certified prisoner account
statement for the prior six-month period, in a single filing
as required by the deficiency order. While pro se
pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings
drafted by lawyers, pro se litigants are not
entitled to leniency with respect to compliance with readily
comprehended court orders and deadlines. See Jour dan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991).
deficiency order warned Plaintiff that failure to fully and
timely comply may result in dismissal of this action without
further notice. Plaintiff responded to the deficiency order
but did not comply. Accordingly, this action is dismissed
without prejudice for want of prosecution. 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).
foregoing reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal from ...