OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ROBERTO A. LANGE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 6, 2015. Doc. 1. After a ruling that all Plaintiffs had to pay separate filing fees, plaintiffs were ordered to give notice that they wished to proceed with the lawsuit, and the plaintiffs who responded were granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis upon payment of a partial filing fee. Doc. 21. Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy issued two reports and recommendations dismissing certain plaintiffs for either failing to give notice or failing to pay their initial partial filing fee. Doc. 73; Doc. 84. Plaintiff James Irving Dale objects to the recommendation that he be dismissed as a plaintiff. Doc. 86. Dale also filed a motion to reconsider. Doc. 88. For the reasons stated below, the reports and recommendations are adopted in part, Dale's objection is sustained, and his motion to reconsider is denied.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are prisoners incarcerated at Mike Durfee State Prison (MDSP). On June 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that their rights are being violated by prison conditions at MDSP. Doc. 1. Dale moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 4. On June 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge Duffy sent notice to all of the plaintiffs, warning them that they must individually pay a filing fee and that they would be legally responsible as plaintiffs in the case. Doc. 21. She also ordered plaintiffs give notice to the Court if they wished to proceed with the lawsuit by July 2, 2015. Id.
Because plaintiffs Kevin Christopher Crank and Edward Eugene Darity did not respond to Magistrate Judge Duffy's June 3 order, she recommends they be dismissed from the case. Doc. 73. Neither Crank nor Darity objected to this recommendation.
Dale appealed Magistrate Judge Duffy's June 3 order, moved to appoint counsel, and sought class action certification. Doc. 22; Doc. 23; Doc. 24. Most of the other plaintiffs also moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 29; Doc. 31; Doc. 33; Doc. 35; Doc. 37; Doc. 39; Doc. 41; Doc. 42; Doc. 44; Doc. 46. Magistrate Judge Duffy denied class certification and the motion to appoint counsel. Doc. 48. This Court denied Dale's appeal of Magistrate Judge Duffy's original order and adopted her report and recommendation denying class certification and the motion to appoint counsel. Doc. 62; Doc. 63.
Magistrate Judge Duffy granted various plaintiffs' motions to proceed in forma pauperis and set initial partial filing fees for each such plaintiff. Doc. 64; Doc. 65; Doc. 66; Doc. 67; Doc. 68; Doc. 69; Doc. 70; Doc. 71; Doc. 72; Doc. 74; Doc. 75. A number of plaintiffs paid their initial partial filing fees. On February 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Duffy recommended dismissal of plaintiffs Dale, Brian Holzer, Guy Blesi, and Dennis Stanish II because they did not pay their initial partial filing fees. Doc. 84. Dale objects to this recommendation, arguing that he cannot afford to pay the initial partial filing fee. Doc. 86. Dale also moves the Court to reconsider its decision concerning his filing fee, raising the same argument put forth in his objection to the report and recommendation. Doc. 88.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court reviews de novo any objections that are timely made and specific. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) ("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to").
III. DISCUSSION
A. Kevin Christopher Crank and Edward Eugene Darity Are Dismissed
Magistrate Judge Duffy ordered all plaintiffs who wished to proceed with the lawsuit to give notice to the Court by July 2, 2015. Doc. 21. Crank and Darity failed to do so. They did not object to Magistrate Judge Duffy's recommendation that they be dismissed from the case. Therefore, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Duffy's recommendation; Crank and Darity are dismissed as plaintiffs.
B. Brian Holzer, Guy Blesi, and Dennis Stanish II Are Dismissed
Magistrate Judge Duffy recommends that Holzer, Blesi, and Stanish II be dismissed because they did not pay their initial partial filing fees. Doc. 84. None of these plaintiffs objected to this recommendation. Therefore, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Duffy's recommendation; Holzer, Blesi, and Stanish II are dismissed as plaintiffs.
C. Dale's Objection Is Sustained
Magistrate Judge Duffy recommends that Dale be dismissed as a plaintiff because he did not pay his initial partial filing fee. Doc. 84. Dale objects, arguing that he cannot pay because he was recently fined by prison officials, and he does not have money to pay the initial partial filing fee. Doc. 86. Dale filed a Declaration stating that he has a negative balance in his inmate trust account and cannot pay the $8.00 filing fee now or in the foreseeable future. Doc. 87. Dale's objection is sustained.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) a prisoner who brings a civil action is required to pay an initial partial filing fee. But, the statute also states, "In no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action . . . for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee."§ 1915(b)(4). Therefore, the initial partial filing fee is waived for Dale, but he still must pay the entire filing fee in installments. See § 1915(b)(1)-(2).
Dale's motion to reconsider seeks the same relief as his objection to Magistrate Judge Duffy's report and recommendation. Because the Court grants Dale's relief by sustaining his objection, his motion to reconsider is denied as moot.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is ORDERED
Comment
User Comments