Feedback

Carpenter V United States

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
            EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN                             
                  SOUTHERN DIVISION                                  

JACK EUGENE CARPENTER, III,                                               

          Plaintiff,               Case No. 2:25-cv-11681            
                                   Hon. Denise Page Hood             
v.                                                                        


UNITED STATES, ET AL,                                                     

          Defendants.                                                
_______________________________________/                                  

        ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE                              

  On June 5, 2025, Jack Eugene Carpenter, III, a pretrial detainee at the 
Livingston County Jail, filed a pro se complaint. Plaintiff asserts that as a federal 
pretrial detainee he is being subjected to harsher conditions than what he would 
receive after conviction and placement with the BOP.1                     
Plaintiff did not pay the required filing fee, and his application to proceed in 
forma pauperis failed to include the necessary supporting documentation. The Court 
issued an Order to Correct Deficiency, informing Plaintiff of the documents that 
were missing from his application, and notifying him that if he did not correct his 
filing deficiency by July 10, 2025, the case may be dismissed.            

1 Plaintiff faces charge in this Court of making threatening interstate   
communications. See United States v. Carpenter, Eastern District of Michigan No. 
2:23-cr-20152.                                                            
Plaintiff responded by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 
5.) Plaintiff states that he is entitled to in forma pauperis status because it was 

granted to him in other civil actions he filed with the Court and by the Sixth Circuit. 
Plaintiff,  however,  failed  to  file  the  required  current  Certification/Business 
Manager’s  Account  Statement,  and  a  statement  of  Trust  Fund  Account  (or 

institutional equivalent) for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing 
of the complaint. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997). 
Moreover, contrary to McGore, Plaintiff explicitly states that he does not authorize 
the withdrawal of funds from his trust fund account as required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b). (ECF No. 5, PageID.15.)                                          
In light of Plaintiff’s failure to correct his filing deficiency, the complaint is 
DISMISSED for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b), Erby v. Kula, 113 

F. App’x. 74, 75-6 (6th Cir. 2004); Davis v. United States, 73 F. App’x. 804, 805 
(6th Cir. 2003).                                                          
IT IS SO ORDERED.                                                    

                              s/Denise Page Hood                     
                              Hon. Denise Page Hood                  
                              United States District Judge           
Dated:    July 23, 2025