Munn v. Brown, et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; IFP status is revoked; within 30 days the plaintiff may pay the filing fee in full with a motion to reopen in order to pursue case; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on February 14, 2018. (cnn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION WILLIE MUNN v. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 4:18-cv-04002 REN BROWN, Police Office and Parole Officer; CHRISTINE WILLIAMS, Parole Officer; MR. JOHNSON, Supervisor Manager; and LISA WILLIS WILKISON, Hearing Examiner DEFENDANTS ORDER Willie Munn, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction, Ouachita River Unit, brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the issue of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and the number of his previous 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuits that have been dismissed for failure to state a claim. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff submitted his Complaint for filing on January 5, 2018, but did not submit an in forma pauperis application (“IFP”) with the Complaint. (ECF No. 1). The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an IFP application. (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff filed his IFP application on January 25, 2018, and the Court granted Plaintiff IFP status. (ECF Nos. 4, 5). While Plaintiff’s allegations are somewhat difficult to decipher, it appears he is claiming that he has been falsely imprisoned because his parole was revoked at a hearing held on November 27, 2017. Plaintiff states he should be released from custody in order to care for his elderly mother who is blind and has cancer. Id. at p. 7. Plaintiff is suing Defendants in their individual and official capacities. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1,500,000.00. (ECF No. 1, p. 5). 1 II. DISCUSSION The PLRA contains a “three strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits the ability of a prisoner, who has filed at least three claims that have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, to obtain IFP status. This provision has commonly become known as the “three strikes rule” or the “three strikes provision.” Shortly after granting Plaintiff IFP status, the Court discovered that, prior to filing the present lawsuit, Plaintiff had filed at least three cases which were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim: (1) Munn v. Endell, Civil No. 5:93-cv-00308 (E.D. Ark. May 25, 1993); (2) Munn v. Garland, et al. Civil No. 4:02-cv-04132 (W.D. Ark. March 13, 2003); and (3) Munn v. Hunt, et al., Civil No. 4:15-cv04072 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 5, 2017). Although Plaintiff has at least three strikes, he may still proceed IFP if he is under “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has made no such allegation. Therefore, he is not eligible to proceed IFP. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's IFP status is revoked, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff wishes to continue this case, he must complete the following within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order: (1) pay the $350 filing fee in full, noting the above case style and number; and (2) file a motion to reopen the case. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of February, 2018. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge 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?