Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01653-BNB
09-05-2012
MICHAEL RAY INGRAM, Plaintiff, v. FRANK CLEMENTS, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, and JAMES FALK, Warden, Sterling Correctional Facility, Colorado Department of Corrections, Defendants.
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
Plaintiff, Michael Ray Ingram, submitted pro se a Prisoner Complaint on June 22, 2012. On June 27, 2012, he was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and directed to pay an initial partial filing fee of $6.00. Mr. Ingram submitted the $6.00 initial partial filing fee on July 2, 2012. On August 6, 2012, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland directed Mr. Ingram to submit an Amended Complaint.
The Court must construe liberally Mr. Ingram's filings because he is representing himself. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be the pro se litigant's advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. "[T]he court is permitted to take judicial notice of its own files and records, as well as facts which are a matter of public record." Van Woudenberg ex rel. Foor v. Gibson, 211 F.3d 560, 568 (10th Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by McGregor v. Gibson, 248 F.3d 946, 955 (10th Cir. 2001). For the reasons stated below, the Court will revoke Mr. Ingram's in forma pauperis status.
The Court has learned from independent research that Mr. Ingram is subject to filing restrictions under § 1915(g). Pursuant to § 1915(g):
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Mr. Ingram has initiated more than three actions or appeals in a court of the United States while he was incarcerated or detained in any facility that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. See Ingram v. Gunter, No. 93-F-368 (D. Colo. May 19, 1994) (dismissed for failure to state a claim and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)); Ingram v. Matthews, No. 92-B-589 (D. Colo. May 1, 1993) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Ingram v. Grunter, No. 90-Z-874 (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 1990) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Ingram v. Kautzky, No. 89-Z-397 (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 1990) (dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)); Ingram v. Vaughan, No. 89-Z-324 (D. Colo. Aug. 29, 1989) (dismissed as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(d)); and Ingram v. Furlong, No. 89-Z-2 (D. Colo. June 30, 1989) (dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)), aff'd, No. 89-1241 (10th Cir. Jan. 24, 1990). In the instant action, Mr. Ingram does not allege that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Therefore, the Order for Amended Complaint will be vacated and Mr. Ingram will be directed to pay the remaining filing fee of $344.00 if he wishes to proceed with his claims in this action. Mr. Ingram's failure to submit the filing fee within the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the in forma pauperis status of Plaintiff, Michael Ray Ingram, is revoked, and he is directed to pay a filing fee of $344.00 in this action within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Ingram fails within thirty (30) days from the date of this order to pay the $344.00 filing fee, the complaint and the action will be dismissed. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Order for an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is vacated.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 5th day of September, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
____________
LEWIS T. BABCOCK
Senior Judge, United States District Court