IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
October 16, 2007
DAVID ANTHONY MCKINNEY, PLAINTIFF,
ALBERTO GONZELES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 6, 2007, the Court directed Plaintiff to either pay the $350 filing fee for this action or file a properly supported motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). Instead of complying with that order, Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 4) explaining that he has no funds and that he does not even have the postage to file such a motion. Ironically, though, Plaintiff states that he was able to borrow postage from a fellow inmate in order to mail this response. This begs the question -- if Plaintiff was able to borrow postage to file this response to a court order, why could he not borrow postage to file an in forma pauperis motion as directed by the Court? Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the Court will give him additional time to do just that.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of the entry of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the $350 filing fee applicable to this action. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, supported by a certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement for the six-monthperiod immediately preceding the filing of the complaint and an affidavit that includes a statement of his assets. Plaintiff is ADVISED that in the event he has been transferred among institutions during this six-month period, it is Plaintiff's responsibility to obtain a copy of his prison trust account statement from each such facility and to forward it to the Court. Plaintiff is FURTHER ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action was filed; such an obligation will exist whether or not Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); see also Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon conclusion of this thirty-day period, should Plaintiff fail to comply with this order, this case will be closed for failure to comply with an order of this Court. FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b); see generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a sufficient number of in forma pauperis motion forms to enable him to comply with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
G. Patrick Murphy United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.