Forney v. McFadden
Forney v. McFadden
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION
QUINTON L. FORNEY PLAINTIFF #64774
v. Case No. 4:22-CV-01203-LPR
McFADDEN, Sheriff Officer, Pulaski County Detention Facility, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff Quinton Forney, an inmate at the Pulaski County Detention Facility, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.1On December 2, 2022, the Court ordered Mr. Forney to, within 30 days, either (1) return a completed in forma pauperis application, including an accompanying affidavit and jail account information sheet, or (2) pay the $402.00 filing and administrative fees.2 The Court warned Mr. Forney that failure to comply with the Order may result in the dismissal of his Complaint.3 Mr. Forney has not complied with the December 2, 2022 Order.4 The time for doing so has expired. Mr. Forney’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.5 The Court certifies pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an in forma pauperis appeal from the Order and Judgment dismissing this action would not be taken in good faith.
1 Compl. (Doc. 1) at 1, 6. 2 Order (Doc. 2). The December 2, 2022 Order was entered by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris.
Id.3
Id.4 Mr. Forney filed a calculation sheet and certificate of prisoner account on December 28, 2022, but did not submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Notice (Doc. 3). 5 See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (district courts have power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of March 2023.
LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown