Laqman v. Wright et al

Filing 9

ORDER approving and adopting 8 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing the 1 Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dismissal of the Complaint constitutes a "strike" within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 11/6/2012. (dmn) (Docket entry modified on 11/7/2012 to correct the file date.) (thd).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
HAKEEM KORON LAQMAN
v.

PLAINTIFF
4:12-cv-00469-BRW-JJV

SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT,
United States District Judge; et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe. No objections have been filed. After careful
consideration, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should
be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

The Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.
2.

Dismissal of the Complaint constitutes a “strike” within the meaning of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1

1

The PLRA provides: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment
in a civil action under this section if 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....” See Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Center, 136 F.3d 458, 462-64 (5th
Cir. 1998), where the court held that dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action in part as
frivolous, and in part for failure to exhaust state court remedies as a habeas claim, should count as
a strike within the meaning of Section 1915(g).
1

3.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from an Order adopting this recommendation and an accompanying Judgment would not be
taken in good faith.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of November, 2012.

/s/Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2