Anderson v. New Britain et al

Filing 37

RULING AND ORDER: The Order granting Mr. Andersons Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 13 , is VACATED. Mr. Andersons Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2 , is DENIED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The pending motions, ECF Nos. 29 , 30 , and 34 are DENIED without prejudice. All further proceedings in this matter shall be held in abeyance for twenty (20) days pending Mr. Anderson's delivery of the filing fee in the amount of $400.00. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 1/29/2018.(Giammatteo, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MICHAEL ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:17-cv-00311 (VAB)

CITY OF NEW BRITAIN ET AL.,
Defendants.

RULING AND ORDER

Michael Anderson (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the Osborn Correctional
Institution in Somers, Connecticut, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights
Complaint against the City of New Britain and several New Britain police officers. ECF Nos. 1,
2. On May 10, 2017, the Court granted Mr. Anderson leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF
No. 13.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court vacates the order granting Mr. Anderson leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and denies the motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act amended the statute governing proceedings filed in
forma pauperis. In relevant part, Section 804(d) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act amended 28
U.S.C. § 1915 by adding the following subsection:

(g) In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding 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
1

be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.
It has recently become apparent to the Court that this provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
requires the denial of Mr. Anderson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. Anderson
previously has had three cases dismissed as frivolous. See Anderson v. Matos, 3:05-cv- 1669 (PCD)
(complaint dismissed for failure to state claim on November 21, 2005, and court declined to reopen
case because amended complaint failed to state claim on December 20, 2005); Anderson v. Chief
Court Administrator, et al., 3:14-cv-1691 (JBA) (complaint dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for
failure to state claim on December 23, 2014); and Anderson v. Commissioner Scott Semple, et al.,
3:15-cv-764 (AVC) (amended complaint dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state
claim on January 26, 2016).
Mr. Anderson signed the Complaint on February 10, 2017, and the Clerk received it for
filing in this action on February 22, 2017. ECF No. 1. Because the three-strikes provision applies in
this case, Mr. Anderson may not bring the present action without pre-payment of the filing fee,
absent allegations of “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554
F.3d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that an “indigent three-strikes prisoner [may] proceed IFP in
order to obtain a judicial remedy for an imminent danger”).
Mr. Anderson must meet two requirements. He must show (1) the imminent danger of
serious physical injury he alleges is fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint
and (2) that a favorable judicial outcome would redress the injury. See id. at 296-97. In addition,
the danger of imminent harm must be present at the time the complaint is filed. See id. at 296.
Mr. Anderson asserts claims related to what he alleges is a false arrest, malicious
prosecution, and illegal search and seizure. For relief, Mr. Anderson seeks monetary damages.

2

Mr. Anderson does not allege that he faced imminent danger of harm at the time he filed
this action. Thus, the exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) is not applicable. Accordingly, the motion
to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
Conclusion
The Order granting Mr. Anderson’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No.
13, is VACATED.
The Clerk is directed to contact the Connecticut Department of Correction and request that
any funds collected from Mr. Anderson’s inmate account under Mr. Anderson’s Prisoner
Authorization Form be returned to Mr. Anderson. No further funds shall be collected from Mr.
Anderson’s prisoner account under the Prisoner Authorization Form.
Mr. Anderson’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The pending motions, ECF Nos. 29, 30, and 34 are DENIED without
prejudice.
All further proceedings in this matter shall be held in abeyance for twenty (20) days
pending Mr. Anderson’s delivery of the filing fee in the amount of $400.00 (cash, bank check or
money order made payable to the Clerk of Court) to the Clerk’s Office, 915 Lafayette Boulevard,
Bridgeport, CT 06604. Failure to tender the filing fee by February 19, 2018, within twenty (20)
days from the date of this Order, will result in the dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 29th day of January 2018.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3