Williams v. Marshall
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice pursuant to the three-strikes provision of the PLRA. Should plaintiff wish to continue this case, he must submit the statutory filing fee of $350 to the Clerk of the Court within 30 days of the entry date of this order, along with a motion to reopen the case; and certifying that an ifp appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 3/30/11. (kpr)
Williams v. Marshall
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION THELMA WILLIAMS, JR ADC #93197 V. D.P. MARSHALL, JR. ORDER Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Arkansas Department of Corrections' Varner Super Max Unit, filed a pro se complaint (docket entry #1), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on March 17, 2011. Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 filing fee, or file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to the threestrikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the three-strikes provision of the PLRA, the Court must dismiss a prisoner's in forma pauperis action at any time, sua sponte or upon a motion of a party, if it determines that the prisoner has "on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury."1 The Eighth Circuit has explicitly upheld the constitutionality of the three-strikes provision.2 4:11CV00250-BRW DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Higgins v. Carpenter, 258 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2001). 1
Records in the office of the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reveal that Plaintiff has had at least three prior civil actions dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.3 Plaintiff's three-strike status has been previously recognized.4 The Court additionally finds, based on the allegations contained in Plaintiff's present complaint, that he is not in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Specifically, Plaintiff is attempting to bring suit against a United States District Judge for rulings he made in one of Plaintiff's other cases. Clearly, the facts alleged do not describe imminent danger of serious physical injury. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiff wish
to continue this case, he must submit the statutory filing fee of $350.00 to the Clerk of the Court, noting the above case style number, within thirty (30) days of the entry date of this order, along with a motion to reopen the case. Upon receipt of the motion and full payment, this case will be reopened. 2. The Court additionally certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma
pauperis appeal from this order or any judgment entered hereunder, would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2011. /s/Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See Williams v. Gibson et al., ED/AR No. 5:07CV00178 (filed July 13, 2007); Williams v. Bennett et al., ED/AR No. 5:07CV00179 (filed July 13, 2007); Williams v. Smallwood et al., 5:07CV00181 (filed July 13, 2007). See Williams v. Hardin, ED/AR No. 2:11CV21; Williams v. Johnson, ED/AR No. 4:10CV141. 2
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?