Carr, Robert v. Pitzen, Kevin et al
| Robert Carr, Jr |
| Kevin Pitzen and Kristy Szelagowski |
| CCI Prison Facility |
| 3:2023cv00313 |
| May 11, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin |
| Stephen L Crocker |
| James D Peterson |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 9, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** Plaintiff Robert Carr Jr. seeks partial reconsideration of my order granting his motion for voluntary dismissal but denying his motion for refund of the filing fee. Carr contends that the filing fee should be refunded because he moved for voluntary dismissal before he paid the initial partial filing fee, at which time he contends that his complaint was "filed." Carr is incorrect: his complaint was filed when the court granted his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which it did before Carr moved for voluntary dismissal. See Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir. 2004). Although Carr was proceeding in forma pauperis, he remains responsible for the full filing fee. See, e.g., United States v. Antonelli, 371 F.3d 360, 362 (7th Cir. 2004). Carr's motion, Dkt. #9 , is DENIED. The clerk of court is directed to send Carr a copy of this order. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/9/2023. (rks),(ps)
|
| Filing 9 Motion for Reconsideration re 8 Order on Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss, by Plaintiff Robert Carr, Jr. (nln),(ps) |
|
Filing 8
** TEXT ONLY ORDER **Pro se plaintiff Robert Carr, Jr. moves for voluntary dismissal and for refund of the filing fee. Dkt. #6 . I will GRANT the motion but only in part. Carr has a right to voluntarily dismiss the case at this stage. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); United States v. UCB, Inc., 970 F.3d 835, 849-50 (7th Cir. 2020). But Carr is not entitled to a refund of the mandatory filing fee. See Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 1998); Beckman v. DeJoy, No. 20-C-1259, 2020 WL 5770345, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 28, 2020). The filing fee is mandatory, even if Carr moved for voluntary dismissal before his amended complaint is due. The clerk of court is directed to send Carr a copy of this order. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 5/23/2023. (jef),(ps)
|
| Filing 7 Warden PLRA Letter. (jef),(ps) |
| Initial Partial Filing fee received: $ 183.09, receipt number 1090. (jef),(ps) |
| Filing 6 Motion to Withdraw Civil Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41 and for refund of the filing fee by Plaintiff Robert Carr, Jr. (jef),(ps) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER dismissing #1 Complaint. Amended Complaint due 6/23/2023. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 5/24/2023. (rks),(ps)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER on ifp request: Plaintiff Robert Carr, Jr. assessed an initial partial filing fee of $183.09 due 6/5/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew R. Wiseman on 5/15/2023. (nln),(ps)
|
| Filing 3 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Plaintiff Robert Carr, Jr. (nln),(ps) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/15/2023: #1 IPP Calculation) (nln). |
| Filing 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Robert Carr, Jr. (nln),(ps) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Robert Carr, Jr. (Case non-randomly assigned to District Judge James D. Peterson.) (nln),(ps) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Wisconsin Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
