McNeil v. U.S.

Full title: Duncan J. McNeil, III, Petitioner, v. United States of America, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Jul 10, 2006

No. CV 05-2097-PHX-DGC (ECV) (D. Ariz. Jul. 10, 2006)

Opinion

No. CV 05-2097-PHX-DGC (ECV).

July 10, 2006

ORDER

DAVID CAMPBELL, District Judge

Petitioner, a county jail prisoner in the State of Washington, brought an action seeking to enforce judgments entered in states other than Arizona. By Order and Judgment filed August 26, 2005 (Doc. ## 6-7), this Court dismissed Petitioner's mandamus action because he failed to pre-pay the $250.00 civil action filing fee as a litigant who has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Presently pending is Petitioner's "Ex Parte Motion in Support of Notice of Appeal" (Doc. # 13). The Court will deny the motion.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis and has submitted a certified inmate trust account statement as well as evidence of his disability. Petitioner's request will be denied. As articulated previously, Petitioner must prepay the $250.00 filing fee for this action as a consequence of obtaining three strikes pursuant to § 1915(g). Petitioner's action does not fall within the purview of § 1915(g)'s exception for allegations of threats of imminent physical injury. Accordingly, Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied.

II. Request for Electronic Filing Access to Court

Next, Petitioner requests electronic filing access to the Court. Petitioner, as an incarcerated individual, is not required to electronically file his documents. Further, Petitioner's case has been closed, eliminating the need to allow Petitioner to electronically file any pleadings. To the extent that Petitioner requests free copies of all electronic documents in the Court's file, Petitioner's request will be denied.

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c)(1). However, that statute does not authorize the appointment of counsel. Moreover, Petitioner has not articulated a basis upon which he is entitled to the appointment of counsel. Petitioner's motion will be denied.

IV. Motion for Copies, Record, and for Service of the Pleadings

Finally, Petitioner requests that the Court prepare the record and serve it on the Respondents. Petitioner's case is closed. The Complaint and record will not be served on Respondents. Petitioner has appealed this Court's decision and Respondents have been notified. As a result, it is unnecessary to serve additional documents on Respondents. Petitioner's request will be denied. In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Ex Parte Motion (Doc. # 13) is DENIED.