Thompson v. Carlson, 82-1531
| Decision Date | 11 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1531,82-1531 |
| Citation | 705 F.2d 868 |
| Parties | Bennie R. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman CARLSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees. . Submitted on Briefs Pursuant to Rule 9(a) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Bennie R. Thompson, Oxford, Wis., for plaintiff-appellant.
Leonard R. Gilman, U.S. Atty., Ellen G. Ritteman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for defendants-appellees.
Before LIVELY and ENGEL, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.
This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After examination of the record and briefs, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Plaintiff appeals the district court order which dismissed his civil rights case with prejudice. It appears from the record that on April 30, 1981, plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted by the United States Magistrate and plaintiff's complaint was filed in the district court.
Thereafter, on March 30, 1982 the district court entered an order vacating the order which granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The order granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis was vacated because the district court determined plaintiff had intentionally misrepresented his financial status in the affidavit to support his request for pauper status. The district court order of March 30, 1982, demanded plaintiff pay the $60 filing fee, and forewarned that if the fee were not paid by April 29, 1982, plaintiff's case would be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's case was, in fact, dismissed with prejudice on June 2, 1982.
Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. This court notes that plaintiff has paid the filing fee for taking this appeal.
Having carefully examined the record and briefs, this court concludes the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's case with prejudice. Harris v. Cuyler, 664 F.2d 388 (3d Cir.1981). For the reasons stated in the district court order of March 30, 1982, and the magistrate's report and recommendation entered March 5, 1982, it is ORDERED that the district court order of dismissal be affirmed. Rule 9(d)(2), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
...v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam); Romesburg v. Trickey, 908 F.2d 258, 260 (8th Cir.1990); Thompson v. Carlson, 705 F.2d 868 (6th Cir.1983) (per curiam). Dismissal with prejudice may have been the feasible sanction for this perjury designed to defraud the government. ......
-
Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons
...this and other cases justifies the district court's imposition of the severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice"); Thompson v. Carlson, 705 F.2d 868, 869 (6th Cir.1983) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where IFP "plaintiff had intentionally misrepresented his financial status in the af......
-
Williams v. Mayfield
...v. Trickey, 908 F.2d 258, 260 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing Harris v. Cuyler, 664 F.2d 388, 389-91 (3rd Cir. 1981); Thompson v. Carlson, 705 F.2d 868, 869 (6th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); Dawson v. Lennon, 797 F.2d 934, 935 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)); see also Finan v. Good Earth Tools, Inc., 56......
-
McClafferty v. Portage Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
...and in bad faith misrepresents his financial status in order to proceed in forma pauperis. See e.g. Thompson v. Carlson, 705 F.2d 868, 869 (6th Cir. 1983); Vann v. Comm'r of the New York Dep't of Corr., 2012 WL 4010492 at *2 (2nd Cir. Sept.13, 2012); Thomas v. General Motors Acceptance Corp......