Jose Arnold Montiel v. State of Michigan, et al.

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Jose Arnold Montiel v. State of Michigan, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSE ARNOLD MONTIEL,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-56 v. Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 15, 2025, but did not pay the required filing fee. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On the same day, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green entered a deficiency order directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) by February 12, 2025 (ECF No. 4). In the deficiency order, the magistrate judge indicated that this action would be dismissed if Plaintiff did not meet the February 12 deadline. Over eight months have now passed since that deadline, and Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor filed an application to proceed IFP. On July 28, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that the Court dismiss this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and W.D. Mich. LCivR 41.1 for want of prosecution and failure to comply with the rules and orders of this Court (ECF No. 6). See Jourdan v. Jabe,

951 F.2d 108, 109

(6th Cir. 1991) (court can dismiss case sua sponte for failure to prosecute). On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R in which he requested that the Court excuse his delay and stated that he would soon file an application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, indicated that he has experienced issues with incoming mail, including delays by mailroom staff in providing him with legal mail. However, Plaintiff did not explain how mail delays could account for his failure to respond to the January 15 order. In addition, nearly two months have passed since Plaintiff filed his objection, and he has still filed no IFP application. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 7) is OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 6) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. A judgment will enter in accordance with this Order.

Dated: October 16, 2025 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou HALA Y. JARBOU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown