Rosenbalm v. Foulk

Filing 4

ORDER denying pauper status and for filing fee. Signed by Judge Illston on 6/28/07. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2007)

Rosenbalm v. Foulk

Doc. 4

Case 3:07-cv-03226-SI

Document 4

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 VINCENT ROSENBALM, 9 10 v. ED FOULK, Defendant. / Plaintiff, No. C 07-3226 SI (pr) ORDER DENYING PAUPER STATUS AND FOR FILING FEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis "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, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Vincent Rosenbalm is subject to the filing restriction on frequent filing prisoners in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because he is a prisoner and has suffered four prior dismissals that counted under § 1915(g). See Order Of Dismissal filed June 1, 2007 in In re. Rosenbalm, N. D. Cal. Case Nos. C 06-7801 SI, C 06-7802 SI, C 07-316 SI, C 07-606 SI, C 07-776 SI, C 07-1295 SI, and C 07-1555 SI. Having just determined that Rosenbalm currently is a prisoner for purposes of § 1915 and having just determined that he has four prior dismissals covered by § 1915(g), there is no need to redetermine those questions in the newest civil rights action he has filed. The court has reviewed the complaint in this action and determines that it does not come within the imminent danger exception in § 1915(g). Section 1915(g) precludes him from

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:07-cv-03226-SI

Document 4

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2

1 proceeding as a pauper in this action. The in forma pauperis application is DENIED. (Docket 2 # 2.) Rosenbalm must pay the full filing fee of $350.00 in this action no later than July 27, 3 2007. Failure to pay the filing fee by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this action. If 4 Rosenbalm chooses to pay the filing fee, he should note on the check or money order the case 5 number for this case, so the fee will not be applied to any other action now pending ­ the court 6 issued an order similar to this one earlier this month in three other actions Rosenbalm had filed. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 8 Dated: June 28, 2007 9 10

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2