Opinion
22-CV-4028 (LTS)
07-07-2022
ABDULLAH SPENCER NIMHAM EL DEY, Plaintiff, v. DOC, et al., Defendants.
BAR ORDER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge.
Plaintiff files this action pro se and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On May 31, 2022, the Court (1) noted that while Plaintiff was a prisoner, he had filed three or more cases that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and (2) ordered Plaintiff, within 30 days, to show cause by declaration why he should not be barred under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (“PLRA”) “three strikes” provision, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), from filing further actions IFP in this Court while he is a prisoner. Plaintiff failed to file a declaration within the time allowed.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that 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 the Court's order to show cause, Plaintiff is barred from filing future actions IFP in this Court while he is a prisoner unless he is under imminent threat of serious physical injury. The Court warns Plaintiff that the 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 dismisses the complaint without prejudice under the PLRA's “three-strikes” provision. 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 be 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 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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.