Gibson v. City of Cincinnati ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION MARIO GIBSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-292 Plaintiff, Barrett, J. vs. Litkovitz, M.J. CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Defendants. AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, an inmate at the Hamilton County Justice Center (HCJC), has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. (Doc. 1). Because plaintiff’s certified prison trust fund account statement reveals that as of April 5, 2021, plaintiff had $513.00 on account to his credit at HCJC (see Doc. 1 at PageID 6), the Court recommended on April 29, 2021, that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) be DENIED and that plaintiff be ordered to pay the required filing fee of $402.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of filing of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 2). On May 17, 2021, plaintiff filed a Motion for Objection to Report and Recommendation, which, in effect, requests the Court to reconsider its Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2) on the ground that HCJC has refused to remove money from plaintiff’s account to pay the filing fee. (See Doc. 3 at PageID 31-32). For good cause shown, the undersigned hereby VACATES IN PART the April 29, 2021, Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2) and SUPPLEMENTS it as follows: Because it appears that plaintiff has sufficient funds to commence this action (see Doc. 1 at PageID 6),1 it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 1To the extent that plaintiff suggests that funds he received from a federal stimulus check are exempt from the Prison Litigation Reform Act filing fee requirements, courts have rejected that argument. See, e.g., Bell v. pauperis (Doc. 1) be DENIED, that plaintiff be ORDERED to request a check or money order in the amount of the $402 filing fee from HCJC in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of filing of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation, and that HCJC be ORDERED to comply with plaintiff's request within fourteen (14) days of receiving the request. For ease of reference, it is further RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to forward a copy of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation to the cashier at HCJC and to the Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. IT ISSO RECOMMENDED. Date: __5/27/2021 Herm K Rethond Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge Maryland, No. CV GLR-21-806, 2021 WL 1516011, at *3 (D. Md. Apr. 16, 2021) (citing Hill v. Cook, 2021 WL 1178209 *2 (D. Ct. Mar. 29, 2021). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION MARIO GIBSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-292 Plaintiff, Barrett, J. vs. Litkovitz, M.J. CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants. NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).