Pitman Jr. v. State Of Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON MICHAEL S. PITMAN JR., Plaintiff, Case No. 3:22-cv-283 vs. STATE OF OHIO, INC., et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 7) AND AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE SILVAIN’S ORDER (Doc. No. 6); (2) REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER COMPLY WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE SILVAIN’S ORDER BY MAY 18, 2023 (Doc. No. 6) OR PAY THE FULL FILING FEE BY MAY 18, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________________ This civil case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se objections (Doc. No. 7) to an Order issued by Magistrate Judge Silvain (Doc. No. 6).

Judge Silvain’s Order requires Plaintiff to “submit a completed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on or before May 18, 2023.” Doc. No. 6, PageID 322 (emphasis in original). Judge Silvain recognized that in response to a prior notice of deficiency, Plaintiff asserted he “ha[s] no means of ‘money’ and therefore cannot pay the cost in this case.” (Doc. No. 6, PageID 322 (quoting Doc. #4, PageID 24)). Judge Silvain found this insufficient because Plaintiff did not indicate whether he has any income or expenses. Id. Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Silvain’s Order are 20 single-line pages in length with over additional pages of attached materials. Doc. No. 7. His objections are reminiscent of arguments frequently raised by self-proclaimed “sovereign citizens,” who, in general, do not recognize the authority of the United States government and its courts. See, e.g., McCormack v. Hollenbach, No. 3:18-cv-P617, 2019 WL 360522, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 29, 2019) (and cases cited therein).

Setting aside this problem, the Court has reviewed de novo, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), Plaintiff’s objections and all filings in this matter. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pro se filings in his favor, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), the Court finds no merit in Plaintiff’s objections; Judge Silvain’s Order is not “clearly erroneous or … contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Plaintiff’s objections are therefore OVERRULED. As a result, to proceed in this case Plaintiff must either: 1. Comply with Judge Silvain’s Order by submitting to the Clerk of Court—by May 18, 2023—a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. No. 6; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915; or 2. Pay the full filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) by May 18 2023.

Plaintiff is placed on NOTICE that if he fails to comply with Judge Silvain’s Order by May 18, 2023 or fails to pay the full filing fee by May 18, 2023, his case may be DISMISSED.

See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991) (affirming order dismissing case because pro se plaintiff “failed to adhere to readily comprehended court deadlines of which he was well- aware”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 5, 2023 s/ Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge