Opinion
23-3152-JWL
08-01-2023
VINCENT LEE WALKER, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS, BOARD OF COUNTY 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, but at that time he neither paid the statutorily required filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or without prepayment of fees. (Doc. 1.) 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 30, 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. 2.) The Court therefore concluded that Plaintiff is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis and it ordered him to pay the full filing fee to the Court on or before July 31, 2023 or the matter would be dismissed without additional prior notice. Id.
Plaintiff filed a response to the order (Doc. 3) and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4), which the Court construed asking for reconsideration of the order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In an order issued July 11, 2023, the Court denied reconsideration and reminded Plaintiff that he remained obligated to submit the filing fee on or before July 31, 2023. (Doc. 5.) On July 14, 2023, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff that asserted that he adequately had shown that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, citing again physical harm he suffered more than 4 months before filing his complaint. (Doc. 6.) As the Court has already explained, however, “[t]he harm must be imminent or occurring at the time the complaint is filed [and] ‘allegations of past harm do not suffice.'” (Doc. 5, p. 2 (citation omitted).)
The July 31, 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.