Banks v. Bureau of Indian Affairs et al
ORDER denying 35 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by Frederick Banks. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 3/29/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO. 2:11CV00191 JMM
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, ET AL.
On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status and he was
allowed to proceed with his complaint against the Defendants. The Defendants filed a
Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status based upon “the three strike” rule
on February 21, 2012. Plaintiff filed a response to the Motion to Revoke and on March 6,
2012, Magistrate Judge Beth M. Deere granted Defendants’ motion finding that Plaintiff
had filed three or more civil cases which were dismissed for failure to state a claim. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In this same March 6, 2012 Order, Plaintiff was directed to pay the
$350.00 filing fee within thirty days and informed that if he did not pay the filing fee, his
case would be dismissed.
On March 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court contending that
the Magistrate Judge erred as a matter of law because § 1915 does not apply to Plaintiff
because he is an American Indian.
Plaintiff contends that if a federal law of general applicability is silent on the issue
of applicability to Indian tribes, the federal law will not apply to American Indians if the
application of the law to the tribe would abrogate rights guaranteed by Indian treaties.
See Donovan v. Couer d”Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff’s appeal is denied (#35). See Banks v. Bureau of Prisons, 2010 WL
2232941 (E.D.N.C. June 2010) (Courts are not permitted to exempt prisoner from § 1915
based on American Indian ethnicity).
IT IS ORDERED THIS 29
day of March, 2012.
James M. Moody
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?