IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
January 20, 2010
LENNIL L. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
MEARL JUSTUS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
At the time he filed his pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Plaintiff was confined at the St. Clair County Jail (SCCJ) "for final disposition on a pending felony complaint." See Attachment to Plaintiff's complaint, p. 1. Although it appears that after filing the complaint and the instant motion to proceed in forma pauperis Plaintiff was released from confinement,*fn1 he was detained at the time he filed these pleadings and, therefore, the prisoner provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 still apply. See Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895, 897-98 (7th Cir. 1997).
After determining that Plaintiff was "under imminent danger of serious physical injury" as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) with regard to his claim that he was denied medical care for his dental problem,*fn2 this Court assessed an initial partial filing fee of $6.67 based on the information contained in Plaintiff's jail account statement. Robbins, 104F.3d at 898-99. This Court further advised Plaintiff that he was obligated to pay the balance of the $350 filing fee (or $343.33). Id. at 899. In lieu of paying the balance of the filing fee ($343.33), the Court informed Plaintiff that he could seek in forma pauperis status with respect to the balance. Id. The Court directed (1) that Plaintiff pay the $6.67 initial partial filing fee with 15 days; and (2) that Plaintiff pay the balance of the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis for it within 15 days.
Although Plaintiff paid the $6.67 initial partial filing fee within the allotted time, more than 15 days have passed and Plaintiff has neither paid the balance of the filing fee nor submitted a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis with respect to that amount. Moreover, Plaintiff has not explained why he has failed to comply with this Court's prior order or sought additional time to comply with it. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to comply with an order of this Court. FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b); Robbins, 104 F.3d at 899; see also Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994). All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R. Herndon DISTRICT JUDGE