Restricted Filer v. Roberts et al

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER, DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Frederick Banks; Case is DISMISSED as frivolous and malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; clerk of court DIRECTED to return, unfiled, any papers filed in a ny civil case by or on behalf of Frederick Banks (exceptfor a notice of appeal in this case or unless filed in a habeas corpus proceeding) until he has paid in full all outstanding fees and sanctions in all civil actions in any federal court; DIRECTS the clerk to note on the docket of this case any attempted filings in violation of this order; ***Civil Case Terminated (cc: Banks, Superintendent) Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 6/14/16. (mlc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
FREDERICK BANKS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HON. RICHARD W. ROBERTS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:16-CV-208

OPINION AND ORDER
Frederick Banks, a pro se prisoner housed in Butner FCI in
North

Carolina,

is

an

abusive

litigator.

He

is

barred

from

proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
because he has accumulated dozens of strikes. This is not news to
him. He has been told this more than a hundred times. The United
States District Court for the District Of Massachusetts recently
explained his litigation history:
Banks has, while a prisoner, filed numerous cases
in federal district courts throughout the country that
have been dismissed as malicious or frivolous or for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. In 2008, this Court (Tauro, J.), identified ten
such cases and denied his motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on that ground. See Banks v. Sutherland,
C.A. No. 08-10880-JLT, Docket No. 3 (D. Mass. May 28,
2008). In 2013, a federal district court in Ohio
identified 205 cases Banks had filed in federal district
courts which had been dismissed at the pleading stage;
of those cases, one third were dismissed as frivolous
and the remaining two thirds were dismissed under the
three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Banks
v. Valaluka, C.A. No. 15-01935, 2015 WL 7430077, at *1
& n.1 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2015).

Banks v. Eddy, No. 1:16-CV-10974 (D. Mass June 10, 2016).
An inmate with three or more strikes “can use the partial
prepayment option in § 1915(b) only if in the future he ‘is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.’” Abdul-Wadood v.
Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir. 1996). In order to meet the
imminent danger standard, the threat complained of must be real
and proximate. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir.
2003).

Only

“genuine

emergencies”

qualify

as

a

basis

for

circumventing § 1915(g). Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th
Cir. 2002). In this case, Banks is seeking $500,000,000.00 from 36
defendants, including 18 judges, seven senators, the president of
the United States because he has been targeted for telepathic
surveillance. The complaint further alleges various events which
will occur later this year, including his arrest by 40 FBI agents
on August 7, 2016, and court testimony by one of those agents on
August 11, 2016. Banks alleges that he has been previously found
to be “paranoid, mentally ill, and delusional . . ..” DE 1 at 1.
Without regard to his mental condition, the allegations in this
complaint are clearly delusional. They do not plausibly allege
that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury even
if he has accurately predicted that he will be arrested by 40 FBI
agents on August 7, 2016. Therefore he cannot proceed in forma
pauperis.
2

Nevertheless, he filed an in forma pauperis petition. The
Seventh Circuit requires that litigants who attempt to “bamboozle”
the court – by seeking to proceed in forma pauperis after they
have been informed that they are barred from doing so –

be

restricted.
Litigants to whom § 1915(g) applies take heed! An
effort to bamboozle the court by seeking permission to
proceed in forma pauperis after a federal judge has held
that § 1915(g) applies to a particular litigant will
lead to immediate termination of the suit. Moreover, the
fee remains due, and we held in Newlin v. Helman, 123
F.3d 429, 436-37 (7th Cir. 1997), that unpaid docket
fees incurred by litigants subject to § 1915(g) lead
straight to an order forbidding further litigation.
Sloan’s appeal is dismissed for failure to pay the
appellate filing and docket fees. Until Sloan has paid
in full all outstanding fees and sanctions in all civil
actions he has filed, the clerks of all courts in this
circuit will return unfiled all papers he tenders. This
order does not apply to criminal cases or petitions
challenging the terms of his confinement, and may be
reexamined in two years under the approach of Newlin and
Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185
(7th Cir. 1995).
Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999).
So, this case will be dismissed, the filing fee assessed, and
Banks restricted until he has paid in full all outstanding filing
fees and sanctions imposed by any federal court. The restriction
imposed by this order does not restrict him from filing a notice
of appeal in this case nor “impede him from making any filings
necessary to protect him from imprisonment or other confinement,
but . . . [it does] not let him file any paper in any other suit
3

. . . until he pays the money he owes.” Support Sys. Int’l v. Mack,
45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
For the reasons set forth above, the court:
(1) DENIES the in forma pauperis petition (DE 2);
(2) DISMISSES this case as frivolous and malicious pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A;
(3) ORDERS the plaintiff Frederick Banks, BOP # 05711-068, to
pay (and the facility having custody of him to automatically remit)
to the clerk of this court 20 percent of the money he receives for
each calendar month during which he receives $10.00 or more, until
the $400.00 filing fee is paid in full;
(4) DIRECTS the clerk of court to return, unfiled, any papers
filed in any civil case by or on behalf of Frederick Banks (except
for a notice of appeal in this case or unless filed in a habeas
corpus proceeding) until he has paid in full all outstanding fees
and sanctions in all civil actions in any federal court;
(5) DIRECTS the clerk to note on the docket of this case any
attempted filings in violation of this order; and
(6) DIRECTS the clerk of court to ensure that a copy of this
order is mailed to each facility where the plaintiff is housed
until the filing fee has been paid in full.

DATED: June 14, 2016

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court

4