Opinion
Case No. 4:07cv406-SPM/WCS.
October 3, 2007
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is an inmate proceeding pro se in this civil case and is incarcerated in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff initiated this action on September 21, 2007, by filing a complaint alleging that various judges are biased against him and should be removed from office. Plaintiff also submitted an in forma pauperis motion, doc. 2, with a statement reflecting transactions in Plaintiff's inmate bank account.
Plaintiff is not, however, entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court. Judicial notice is taken of a case Plaintiff filed last year in the Northern District of Illinois: case 06-C-3979. There, in an order denying Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court found:
At least three of the plaintiff's forty-eight previous federal actions have been dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In fact, the plaintiff has been repeatedly advised that he has "struck out." See, e.g., Awala v. Gonzales, Case. No. JFM-06-1052 (D. Md.), Order of June 15, 2006 (Motz, J.); Awala v. 8 U.S.C. § 1326 , Case No. 06-0012 (D. Del.), Order of January 19, 2006 (Jordan, J.).Awala v. Orr, et al., case 06-C-3979, Order of July 31, 2006.
As explained above, Plaintiff has more than three "strikes" and is not generally entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in the federal courts absent allegations that he is in imminent danger because he has incurred more than three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff is incarcerated in Pennsylvania and has no personal interaction with any named Defendant. Doc. 1. Plaintiff's allegations do not claim that he is under imminent danger and, thus, this case should be dismissed.
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this action, filed by Plaintiff Gbeke Michael Awala, be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.