Opinion
4:24-cv-00483-BRW
07-08-2024
THELMA WILLIAMS ADC #093197 PLAINTIFF v. JAMES GIBSON, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BILLY ROY WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 5, 2024, pro se plaintiff Thelma Williams, an Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Mr. Williams is a “three-striker,” he can proceed in forma pauperis only if he is currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998).
Doc. 1.
The following dismissals are “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g): Williams v. Gibson, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:07-cv-00178-HW (Aug. 13, 2007 dismissal for failure to state a claim); Williams v. Bennett, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:07-cv-00179-JMM (Aug. 17, 2007 dismissal for same); Williams v. Smallwood, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:07-cv-00181-JMM (Sept. 13, 2007 dismissal for same); and Williams v. White, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:10-cv-00361-BSM (May 13, 2011 dismissal for same).
Mr. Williams alleges that, on two occasions, ADC officials confiscated his clothing. These alleged facts and claims are insufficient to reasonably suggest that Mr. Williams faces an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Based on Mr. Williams' status as a three-striker and his failure satisfy the imminent-danger-of-serious-physical-injury standard, he was ordered to pay the $405.00 filing fee within 30 days in an Order filed on June 7, 2024. The Order specifically cautioned Mr. Williams that his failure to pay the filing fee would result in dismissal of his claims, without prejudice.
Doc. 2.
To date, Mr. Williams has not complied with the Court's June 7, 2024 Order to pay the filing fee, and the time for doing so has passed.
I withdraw the reference. Mr. Williams' complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to: (1) comply with the Court's June 7, 2024 Order requiring him to pay the filing fee; and (2) prosecute this lawsuit. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case. All pending motions are DENIED, as moot.
Doc. Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19.
IT IS SO ORDERED,