Addison v. Martin
ORDER dismissing without prejudice Addison's claims based on his failure to comply with the Court's September 15, 2015 Order, 3 , requiring him to pay the filing fee. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 10/20/2015. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NICHOLAS CORTEZ ADDISON
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00275 JLH/BD
On September 9, 2015, Plaintiff Nicholas Cortez Addison, an inmate in the
Poinsett County Detention Center, filed this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
claiming that Defendant Martin violated his constitutional rights. (Docket entry #2)
Addison also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (#1)
Because of his litigation history, Addison is not eligible for IFP status in federal
court absent an allegation that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.1 Here,
Addison did not plead facts alleging that he was in imminent danger of serious physical
injury, so his motion to proceed IFP was denied. (#3)
The Court allowed Addison thirty days to pay the $400 filing fee necessary to
proceed with this lawsuit. (#3) Addison was specifically cautioned that his failure to pay
the filing fee could result in dismissal of his claims, without prejudice.
The following dismissals constitute “strikes” against Mr. Addison for purposes
of determining eligibility for IFP status: Addison v. Martin, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No.
3:15cv1-JM (dismissed Feb. 2, 2015); Addison v. Muse, E.D. Ark. Case No. 3:15cv133JM (dismissed June 2, 2015); Addison v. Martin, 3:15cv96-DPM (dismissed June 12,
To date, Addison has failed to pay the filing fee, as required in the Court’s
September 15, 2015 Order. The time for doing so has passed.
Addison’s claims are hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure
to comply with the Court’s September 15, 2015 Order requiring him to pay the filing fee.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2015.
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?