Summary
The court grants the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and assesses the full $350 civil filing fee under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court denies without prejudice the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because it lacked required supporting materials and notice certification. The court states that it will conduct the required PLRA screening of the complaint in due course.
Holdings
- Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis because the application and supporting documentation showed that he lacked sufficient financial resources to pay the full filing fee in advance, but he remains responsible for paying the full civil filing fee through the PLRA's statutory payment process.
- The TRO motion could not be considered because Plaintiff failed to provide a supporting memorandum of law, an affidavit or verified complaint, a proposed order, and written certification of efforts to provide notice or reasons notice should not be required. The motion was therefore denied without prejudice.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
- Whether Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) and the Middle District of Tennessee's Local Rule 65.01.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (1)
- Kentucky v. U.S. ex rel. Hagel, 759 F.3d 588, 600 (6th Cir. 2014)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…