Opinion
23-3150-JWL
07-28-2023
VINCENT LEE WALKER, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
John W. Lungstrum, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Vincent Lee Walker is a state prisoner who initiated this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in June 2023 by filing a complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1 and 2.) After an initial review, the Court determined that Plaintiff has, on at least three prior occasions, brought an action in this Court that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, he is subject to the “three-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he may proceed in forma pauperis only if he establishes a threat of imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
On June 27, 2023, the Court issued an order explaining the three-strikes rule, identifying the cases that constitute Plaintiff's prior strikes, and informing him that his complaint does not contain specific, credible allegations that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. (Doc. 3.) The Court therefore denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay the full filing fee to the Court on or before July 27, 2023 or the matter would be dismissed without additional prior notice. Id.
Plaintiff filed a response to the order (Doc. 4), which the Court construed asking the Court to reconsider its denial of Plaintiff's initial motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In an order issued July 5, 2023, the Court denied reconsideration. (Doc. 5.) On July 14, 2023, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff-addressed “[t]o whom it may concern”-that contended that the Court had erred in denying the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6.) Because the letter was not a motion and because the Court had twice explained to Plaintiff in this matter that he had not shown that he is under threat of imminent danger of serious physical harm, the Court took no action on Plaintiff's letter.
The July 27, 2023 deadline by which Plaintiff was required to pay the $402.00 district court filing fee has now passed and Plaintiff has neither paid the fee nor moved for an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.