Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    ROWE v. POLLY - Document No. 2

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    The magistrate judge ordered the plaintiff, Harold H. Rowe Jr., to pay the $350 filing fee by August 6, 2007 for his civil rights complaint against a fellow prisoner seeking monetary damages. If Rowe failed to pay the fee, the judge would recommend dismissing the case from the docket. The judge noted that Rowe had filed three other frivolous lawsuits recently and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis to avoid paying fees due to his frequent frivolous filings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ROWE v. POLLY - Document No. 2

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    35 views1 page
    The magistrate judge ordered the plaintiff, Harold H. Rowe Jr., to pay the $350 filing fee by August 6, 2007 for his civil rights complaint against a fellow prisoner seeking monetary damages. If Rowe failed to pay the fee, the judge would recommend dismissing the case from the docket. The judge noted that Rowe had filed three other frivolous lawsuits recently and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis to avoid paying fees due to his frequent frivolous filings.

    Original Description:

    ORDER to pay filing fee. By Judge MARGARET J. KRAVCHUK. (CWP, ) 1:2007cv00094 Maine District Court

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The magistrate judge ordered the plaintiff, Harold H. Rowe Jr., to pay the $350 filing fee by August 6, 2007 for his civil rights complaint against a fellow prisoner seeking monetary damages. If Rowe failed to pay the fee, the judge would recommend dismissing the case from the docket. The judge noted that Rowe had filed three other frivolous lawsuits recently and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis to avoid paying fees due to his frequent frivolous filings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    35 views1 page

    ROWE v. POLLY - Document No. 2

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    The magistrate judge ordered the plaintiff, Harold H. Rowe Jr., to pay the $350 filing fee by August 6, 2007 for his civil rights complaint against a fellow prisoner seeking monetary damages. If Rowe failed to pay the fee, the judge would recommend dismissing the case from the docket. The judge noted that Rowe had filed three other frivolous lawsuits recently and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis to avoid paying fees due to his frequent frivolous filings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    ROWE v. POLLY Doc.

    2
    Case 1:07-cv-00094-JAW Document 2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 1

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    DISTRICT OF MAINE

    HAROLD H. ROWE, JR., )


    )
    Plaintiff )
    v. ) Civil No. 07-94-B-W
    )
    BRIAN POLLY, )
    )
    Defendant )

    ORDER

    Plaintiff has filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 seeking monetary damages from

    a fellow prisoner. His complaint is accompanied by neither the filing fee nor an application to proceed in

    forma pauperis. Rowe has failed to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay the

    $350.00 filing fee1 by August 6, 2007, failing which I will issue a recommendation that this matter be

    dismissed from the docket because no filing fee has been paid.

    SO ORDERED

    July 13, 2007 /s/ Margaret J. Kravchuk


    U.S. Magistrate Judge

    1 Normally in this situation I would grant Rowe leave to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis in lieu
    of paying the filing fee. However, I have already issued three recommended decisions in the last month
    recommending denial of IFP status based upon Rowe's frequent and frivolous filings. Please see Rowe v. Blake, 7-cv-
    86, Rowe v. Turner, 7-cv-87, and Rowe v. Riley, 7-cv-91. This complaint does not appear to be facially frivolous like
    some of the others, but it does not contain any allegation that even remotely suggests that Rowe is in imminent
    danger of serious physical injury such as would relieve him of his obligations under the PLRA. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

    Dockets.Justia.com

    You might also like