Manzanales v. Tilden et al

Filing 7

MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 8/15/14. IT IS ORDERED that: 1) The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety as repetitive of the claims already before this court in Manzales v Tilden No. 13-1532. 2) The Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee even though this case has been dismissed. The agency having custody of the Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order. 3) This dismissal shall count as one of the Plaintiff's three allotted strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). See Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109 (7th Cir.2003) (suit is "malicious" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 i f it is intended to harass or isotherwise abusive of the judicial process); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 99495 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that it is malicious for a plaintiff to file a lawsuit under the in forma pauperis statute that duplicates alleg ations of another pending lawsuit). The clerk of the court is directed to record the Plaintiffs strike in the three-strike log. 4) If the Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leaveto appeal in forma pauperis MUST set forth the issues the Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (FDT, ilcd)