Doss v. Lashbrook, 3:16-cv-00449

Kerwin Doss (prisoner) had a § 1983 complaint filed in his name alleging injury from soy in the Pinckneyville prison diet; accompanying IFP and related motions were filed.
The day after filing, Doss moved to voluntarily dismiss the complaint; the Court granted dismissal but allowed 35 days to file an amended complaint and ordered trust‑fund statements for fee calculation.
Doss then filed a motion asserting the suit was fraudulently filed by another inmate (“Twin”) without his authorization or signature and sought a stay of fee determination and reimbursement.
Doss presented affidavit evidence that Twin extorted inmates, filed the suit listing his name incorrectly as “Erwin,” and admitted having someone forge signatures. The Court found Doss’s account credible.
The Court dismissed the action without prejudice, ordered that no filing fee be assessed, denied pending motions as moot, directed the Clerk to close the case, and held the dismissal would not count as a § 1915(g) strike.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the suit was filed with Doss’s authorization	Doss: another inmate filed the complaint and forged his signature; he never authorized it	No defendant raised a contrary factual claim; record shows only Doss’s affidavit	Court credited Doss and found the suit filed without his authorization; case dismissed without prejudice
Whether filing fee should be assessed	Doss: he should not pay fees for a suit filed in his name without permission; requests reimbursement if any fee deducted	No opposing claim; Clerk had not yet deducted funds because IFP was not granted	Court ordered no filing fee assessed and noted no funds had been deducted, so no refund owed
Disposition of pending motions (IFP, counsel, service)	Doss sought stay and requested motions be held or fees reimbursed	No defense argument presented	Court denied all pending motions as moot given dismissal
Whether dismissal counts as a § 1915(g) strike or affects appellate obligations	Doss implied dismissal should not penalize him; Court to clarify consequences	N/A	Court held dismissal will not count as a strike under § 1915(g); advised on appellate fee/liability rules if he appeals

Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008) (appellate filing fee and IFP appeal procedures)
Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1999) (prisoner IFP and appellate fee liability)
Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 1998) (nonmeritorious appeals and consequences for prisoner appellants)