Nixon v. Does
ORDER denying 1 motion to proceed in forma pauperis and plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. Nixon's 6 motion is also denied. If Nixon wants to pursue this case, then he must pay $402 and file a motion to reopen the case by 12/19/2022. An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgmnet will not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 11/21/2022. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
RONNIE J. NIXON
1. Nixon is a three-striker. Before filing this lawsuit, he had at
least three cases dismissed for failing to state a claim.
Nixon v. Mills, Case No. 3:10-cv-12-BSM;
Nixon v. Cox,
3:17-cv-122-BRW; Nixon v. Hitt, Case No. 3:17-cv-138-JM. Nothing in
Nixon's new complaint, Doc. 2, or addendum, Doc. 7, suggests he's
currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). His motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is therefore
denied, and his complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. Nixon's
motion, Doc. 6, is also denied.
2. If Nixon wants to pursue this case, then he must pay $402
(the filing and administrative fees) and file a motion to reopen the case
by 19 December 2022. An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and
accompanying Judgment will not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
D .P. Marshall Jr.
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?