Maybin v. Fuller ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GLENN MAYBIN, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:23-cv-12575 v. Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge INSPECTOR FULLER et al., Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER PROHIBITING REFILING OF CASE AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS On June 25, 2024, the above-captioned case was summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) for failure to state a claim. See ECF Nos. 11; 12. “If the case is dismissed under these circumstances, it is not to be reinstated to the district court’s active docket”—even if the plaintiff attempts to pay the filing fees. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007); Redd v. Redmon, 215 F.3d 1327 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that McGore applies to cases dismissed “under § 1915(e)(2)(A)”); see also Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 489 (6th Cir. 2002) (same “where the district court dismisses cases sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A”), abrogated on other grounds by Jones, 549 U.S. 199; Boussum v. Washington, 655 F. Supp. 3d 636, 642 (E.D. Mich. 2023) (same for cases dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)). Moreover, Plaintiff may not appeal in forma pauperis, because an appeal from this order would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the above-captioned case is PROHIBITED from being reinstated to the district court's active docket—even if Plaintiff pays the filing fees. Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. /s/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge Dated: 6/27/2024