AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

KENNETH RAY PITTS, ADC #085939 PLAINTIFF v. CLYDE DANIELS, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections

This Recommendation for dismissal has been sent to Judge Susan Webber Wright. Mr. Pitts may file objections if he disagrees with the findings or conclusions set out in the Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. To be considered, objections must be filed within 14 days.

If no objections are filed, Judge Wright can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, Mr. Pitts may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

II. Discussion

Kenneth Ray Pitts, an Arkansas Division of Correction inmate, filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 2) Because of his litigation history, Mr. Pitts is not eligible for in forma pauperis (IFP) status, absent allegations that he is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. Mr. Pitts did not plead facts indicating imminent danger; thus, on April 1, 2020, the Court ordered him to pay the $400 filing fee within 30 days. (Doc. No. 3)

The following dismissals constitute "strikes" against Mr. Pitts for purposes of determining eligibility for IFP status: Pitts v. Moore, et al., 4:06-cv-1305-JLH (E.D. Ark. Sept. 22, 2016) (order dismissing action for failure to state a claim); Pitts v. Johnson, et al., No. 5:99-cv-71-JMM (E.D. Ark. May 11, 1999) (order dismissing action for failure to state a claim); and Pitts v. Brownlee, et al., No. 5:99-cv-178-HW (E.D. Ark. Sept. 7, 1999) (order dismissing action for failure to state a claim). --------

Since entry of the April 1 Order, Mr. Pitts has filed a second motion to proceed IFP, but he has not paid the filing fee. The Court specifically cautioned him that his claims would be dismissed if he failed to address the filing fee requirement. (Doc. No. 3)

III. Conclusion

The Court recommends that Mr. Pitts's claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to comply with the April 1 Order requiring him to pay the filing fee.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2020.

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Pitts v. Daniels
(May 4, 2020)