August 27, 2014
STEPHEN MICHAEL [ANGE], Plaintiff,
JOHN BURKE, et als., Defendants
PLAINTIFF STEPHEN MICHAEL [ANGE] REPRESENTED BY STEPHEN MICHAEL [ANGE] C/O YORK COUNTY JAIL 1 LAYMAN WAY ALFRED, ME 04002 PRO SE
DEFENDANT JOHN BURKE, MICHAEL FREEMAN, YORK COUNTY JAIL, MAURICE OULLETTE SHERIFF, YORK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LISA J HICKOX, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, CHRISTINE FOSTER, STATE OF MAINE
RECOMMENDED DECISION TO DISMISS
JOHN C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On July 11, 2014, Plaintiff Stephen Michael,  who states that he is wrongfully incarcerated in the York County Jail, filed a pro se Complaint naming John Burke and others as defendants. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) On July 28, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Order, ECF No. 5.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). In its order, the Court stated:
The Clerk is hereby directed to forward a form Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file a properly completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, together with a certified copy of his prisoner trust accounts or pay the filing fee of $400.00, no later than August 20, 2014, failing which the Court will issue a recommendation that this matter be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
(ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, nor did he submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis before the deadline of August 20, 2014, as provided in the order. Instead, he filed a document entitled “Notice of Refusal for Cause Refusal for Fraud, ” along with several other documents, including a copy of the Court’s July 28, 2014, Order with a handwritten notation across it that appears to state “Refusal for Cause Refusal for Fraud.” (ECF Nos. 7, 7-2.) Plaintiff’s filings do not comply with the requirement that he file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certified copy of his prisoner trust accounts or, alternatively, that he pay the filing fee. Accordingly, consistent with the Court’s July 28, 2014, Order, the recommendation is that the Court dismiss the Complaint for lack of prosecution.