Opinion
CIVIL 1:22-CV-00902
11-26-2024
RONALD STOCKTON, Plaintiff, v. SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS MCGINLEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Jennifer P. Wilson Judge
Before the court is Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 84.) The court finds that Plaintiff has abused the in forma pauperis privilege, and will deny his motion. Plaintiff shall have thirty days to pay the outstanding balance of the filing fee or the case will be dismissed.
Factual Background and Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in June of 2022. (Doc. 1.) Twenty days later, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 6.) The amended complaint named 29 defendants from SCI-Houtzdale, 19 Defendants from SCI-Coal Township, and the prison commissary industries, and brought claims of conspiracy, retaliation, deliberate indifference, equal protection, excessive force, free speech, failure to protect, cruel and unusual punishment, defamation, sexual harassment, and embezzlement. (Id.) Both the complaint and the amended complaint were served on all defendants on July 12, 2022. (Docs. 13, 14.)
The procedural history after the amended complaint is extensive because Plaintiff has engaged in extensive, and often meritless, litigation. Plaintiff filed two motions for preliminary injunction. (Docs. 8, 20.) The court denied these motions on October 31, 2022. (Doc. 46.) On November 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order. (Doc. 54.) This motion for reconsideration was deemed withdrawn on January 3, 2023, because Plaintiff failed to file the required brief in support. (Doc. 72.)
On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order addressing concerns that his property had been destroyed. (Doc. 45.) Plaintiff filed multiple supplements to his motion. (Docs. 48, 55, 56, 60, 66.) On November 21, 2022, the court ordered Defendants to respond to this motion. (Doc. 62.) While this response was pending, the court entered a temporary restraining order to enjoin the DOC from destroying Plaintiff's property. (Id.) Defendants' response confirmed that no property was destroyed and detailed how the property was being held. (Doc. 46.) Therefore, the court has refused to consider additional motions on these allegations. (Docs. 71, 72.)
On January 3, 2023, the court entered an order dismissing the majority of the claims raised in this action as improperly joined. (Id.) In doing so, the court noted that Plaintiff had filed twelve additional cases in this court and questioned whether Plaintiff was attempting to fit as many claims as possible into a single filing fee. (Doc. 71, pp. 9-10.)
For ease of reference, the court utilizes the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
The issue currently before the court is whether or not Plaintiff should be permitted to continue to pursue this action in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was granted this status when the case was initiated. (Doc. 13.) However, Defendants notified the court that Plaintiff received a large sum in his prisoner trust account, and the court revoked his in forma pauperis status, granting him an opportunity to either pay the filing fee of demonstrate to the court that he was unable to pay the fee. (Docs. 71, 72.) Plaintiff's subsequent motion to reinstate his in forma pauperis status was denied for lack of proper documentation. (Doc. 79.) Plaintiff has now renewed his motion with the required prisoner trust account statement, Docs. 84, 85, and Defendants have filed a brief in opposition, Doc. 87. Plaintiff has not filed a reply. Therefore, the motion is ripe and will be addressed by the court.
Jurisdiction
The court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which allows a district court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in civil cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Venue
Venue is proper in this district as all acts and omissions giving rise to the claims that survived the Rule 12(b)(6) motion occurred at SCI-Coal Township, which is located within this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b).
Discussion
Pending is Plaintiff's motion to reinstate his in forma pauperis status following the revocation of this status earlier this year. (Docs. 84, 85.) Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has a current balance of $90.89 in his prisoner trust account and has an outstanding balance of $101.31 of the $350.00 filing fee. However, the evidence also demonstrates that Plaintiff received a gift of $1,000.00 in October of 2022 and has received additional gifts in the six-month period leading up to his current motion. (Doc. 85.) Plaintiff has used these funds to cover commissary items, postage, federal filing fees, copies, and medical co-pays. (Id.) Therefore, during the six months proceeding his most recent application, Plaintiff had the means to pay the filing fee in full.
The court highlights that proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Shahin v. Sec'y of Delaware, 532 Fed. App'x. 123 (3d Cir. Sept. 4, 2013), citing White v. Colo., 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998). “[A] litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). The court has discretion when determining whether to grant or deny an in forma pauperis application. See 28 U.S.C. §1915 (“any court of the United States may authorize the commencement ... of any suit ... without prepayment of fees or security therefor”) (emphasis added); see also Jones v. Zimmerman, 752 F.2d 76, 78 (3d Cir. 1985). The Supreme Court has held that courts have a duty to deny in forma pauperis status to litigants who have abused this privilege. In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 180 (1991).
A comprehensive history of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and the discretion of the courts to allow litigants to proceed in forma pauperis has been set forth in Aruanno v. Davis, 42 F.Supp.3d 618, 620-23 (D. N.J. Sept. 4, 2014).
As the court has noted in its last memorandum, Plaintiff has filed twelve actions in addition to the above-captioned action in this court. (Doc. 71, pp. 9-10.) Of those, seven were closed because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and one was dismissed voluntarily. See 1:14-CV-00014-WWW-EW; 3:19-CV-00742-ARC-EW; 3:19-CV-01262-ARC-EW; 3:19-CV-01306-ARC-EW; 3;19-CV-01429-ARC-EW; 3:19-CV-01747-ARC-EW; 3:19-CV-01748-ARC-EW; 3:19-CV-01930-ARC-EW.
Plaintiff has not incurred a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), because he essentially abandoned these claims before the court had an opportunity to screen the complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). However, “[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources. A part of the Court's responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). Additionally, in the actions that have proceeded beyond the initial screenings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Plaintiff has filed repeated motions for reconsideration, motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining orders, and motions for sanctions against opposing counsel, the majority of which have been meritless. See 16-CV-00613-JPW-EW; 3:19-CV-02228-JPW-EW; 1:21-CV-00029-JPW-EW; 1:22-CV-00114-JPW-EW.
Therefore, the court will exercise its discretion and deny Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., In re McDonald, 489 U.S. at 184 (denying in forma pauperis status to non-prisoner seeking to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court, where the person had pursued 73 prior filings); Zatko v. California, 502 U.S. 16 (1991) (denying applications to proceed in forma pauperis to file a habeas corpus petition to one petitioner who filed 73 petitions and to another petitioner who filed 45 petitions); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (denying in forma pauperis application of “a notorious abuser of this Court's certiorari process,” who had filed 11 petitions which were frivolous, with the arguable exception of one); Butler v. Department of Justice, 492 F.3d 440, 444-45 (D.C.Cir.2007) (denying in forma pauperis application of a prisoner who did not have three strikes, but who had on at least five prior occasions brought appeals that were dismissed for failure to prosecute).
The court's resolve to deny Plaintiff's motion is reinforced by the numerous actions Plaintiff has initiated outside this court and were brought to the court's attention by Defendants. (Doc. 87, pp. 3-4.) This includes fifteen actions in the Commonwealth Court and seven actions in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. (Id.)
As such, the court will deny Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Furthermore, the court will grant Plaintiff a period of thirty days to show cause why an injunction should not be entered precluding him from proceeding in forma pauperis in future actions. See Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993) (Before imposing such an injunction, a district court in the Third Cricut must: (1) ensure that there are “exigent circumstances, such as a litigant's continuous abuse of the judicial process by filing meritless and repetitive actions,” (2) allow the litigant “to show cause why the proposed injunctive relief should not issue”; and (3) “narrowly tailor[ ]” the injunctive order “to fit the particular circumstances of the case before the District Court.”).
Conclusion
ACCORDINGLY, on this 9th day of March, 2023, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 84, is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff shall pay the remaining outstanding balance of his filing fee of $101.31 and the administrative fee of $52.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order or the above captioned action will be dismissed.
3. Plaintiff shall show cause why an injunction should not be entered precluding him from proceeding in forma pauperis in future actions within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.