Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Randle v. Davidson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


June 18, 2009

ANWAR RANDLE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JAMES DAVIDSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R Herndon District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs Randle, Dismuke, Reyes, Crum, Chabitch, Turner, and Wilborn have filed a joint action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has received motions to proceed in forma pauperis from each Plaintiff except Plaintiff Dionsio Reyes. The Court further notes that Plaintiff Reyes has not submitted the full $350 filing fee either.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than July 17, 2009, Plaintiff Reyes shall pay the $350 filing fee applicable to this action. In the alternative, Plaintiff Reyes 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 Reyes is ADVISED that in the event he has been transferred among institutions during this six-month period, it is his responsibility to obtain a copy of his prison trust account statement from each such facility and to forward it to the Court. Plaintiff Reyes 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 should Plaintiff Reyes fail to comply with this order in the time alloted, this he will be dismissed as a Plaintiff in this action 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090618

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.