Opinion
Civ. No. 14-2025 (FLW) (DEA)
08-12-2019
ALAN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court has previously denied three applications by plaintiff, Alan Johnson ("Plaintiff"), to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. (See, ECF Nos. 2, 4, 9-10.) Each denial was premised upon Plaintiff's failure to accompany his application with a proper trust fund account statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint that is certified by the appropriate prison official. (See id.)
When the Court denied Plaintiff's third in forma pauperis application, on January 16, 2018, it administratively terminated the action and permitted Plaintiff 30 days to submit a complete in forma pauperis application or pay the proper filling fee. (Id.) At that time, the Court also alerted Plaintiff to substantive deficiencies in his Complaint. (See ECF No. 9.) As Plaintiff did not file a complete in forma pauperis application or pay the filling fee, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice on April 11, 2018. (ECF No. 11.)
More than a year later, Plaintiff filed an application to reopen this action, accompanied by a fourth application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 14 & 15.) Like each of his prior in forma pauperis applications, his most recent application is defective, as it does not included a trust fund account statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint that is certified by the appropriate prison official. Indeed, while Plaintiff included a prison account statement, it is not certified by any prison official. (See ECF No. 15.)
Additionally, as the Court previously noted in its opinion denying Plaintiff's third in forma pauperis application, his Complaint "would be subject to dismissal at screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim for relief." (ECF No. 9 at 2.) Specifically, the Court found that the facts alleged "do not support a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs." (See id. at 2-4.) As Plaintiff's Complaint remains unmodified from its initial filing, this issue remains the same: even were the Court to grant Plaintiff's motion to reopen the action and his application to proceed in forma pauperis, his Complaint would be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis to reopen this action.
THEREFORE, IT IS, on this 12th day of August 2019,
ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to reopen this action, (ECF No. 14), is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's fourth application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 15), is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.
s/Freda L . Wolfson
Freda L. Wolfson,
U.S. Chief District Judge