Opinion
19-CV-3625 (CM)
05-30-2019
MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW MARK CUOMO, et al., Defendants.
BAR ORDER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) :
Plaintiff filed this action pro se, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). On April 25, 2019, the Court noted that while a prisoner, Plaintiff had filed three or more cases that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and it ordered Plaintiff to show cause by declaration within thirty days why he should not be barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from filing further actions IFP in this Court while he is a prisoner. Plaintiff did not file a declaration.
CONCLUSION
While Plaintiff was a prisoner, he filed three or more cases that are deemed strikes because they were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Because Plaintiff has not filed a declaration, as directed in the Court's order to show cause, he is barred from filing future actions in this Court seeking IFP status while a prisoner unless he is under imminent threat of serious physical injury. Plaintiff is warned that the further submission of frivolous documents may result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
The Court denies Plaintiff's request to proceed IFP, and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice under the PLRA's "three-strikes" rule. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff may commence a new action by paying the filing fee. If Plaintiff does so, that complaint will reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to dismiss any civil rights complaint from a prisoner if it "(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is further directed to docket this as a "written opinion" within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 30, 2019
New York, New York
/s/_________
COLLEEN McMAHON
Chief United States District Judge