Opinion
3:24-cv-48-KRG-KAP
05-06-2024
CORNELIUS TAYLOR, Plaintiff v. SCOTT KLINEFELTER, WARDEN S.C.I. HOUTZDALE, et al., Defendants
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Taylor's attempt to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, his Motion to Demonstrate Imminent Danger, ECF no. 10, is denied. The matter is administratively closed because Taylor has not paid the filing fee and is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis because he is a three-strikes litigant under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g). Taylor can therefore proceed in forma pauperis only if he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc). Taylor attaches twenty-plus pages of paperwork relating to grievances he has filed to a two-page motion which essentially says: read my exhibits and find in my favor. That is not proper presentation of anything in any motion by any litigant.
Taylor must demonstrate an adequate nexus between the claims he seeks to pursue in this complaint and imminent danger of serious physical injury. He has not done so.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the parties can within fourteen days file written objections to my recommendation. In the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).