GLASCO v. KNIGHT et al

Filing 30

ENTRY DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. For the reasons discussed herein: Part II: Plaintiff shall have through 4/9/09 in which to report whether at the time his request to proceed in forma pauperis was filed in this action, he was ineligible to proceed in that fashion based on the circumstances described in Part I of this Entry. The action is stayed except as to the directions stated in Part II until plaintiff has proceeded as directed and the court has made any order required by the information which is provided. Consistent with the stay, all pending motions are denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 3/18/2009. c/m. (LBK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA CONZALOS GLASCO, Plaintiff, vs. CAPTAIN PRULHIERE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:08-cv-1711-DFH-DML

Entry Directing Further Proceedings The court notes in its review of this matter that the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted in paragraph 1 of the Entry issued on January 8, 2009. The court also notes that the plaintiff has an extensive litigation history in federal court. Notwithstanding the ruling in paragraph 1 of the Entry issued on January 8, 2009, a prisoner who has filed at least three suits or appeals that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis and must prepay all fees unless in imminent physical danger. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725 (7th Cir. 2008). As Ammons demonstrates, a court does not always have complete information regarding a litigant's prior "strikes" in this regard. Accordingly, "[a] litigant who knows that he has accumulated three or more frivolous suits or appeals must alert the court to that fact." Id. (citing Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999). In order to meet the imminent danger requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a plaintiff must allege a physical injury that is imminent or occurring at the time the complaint is filed, and the threat or prison condition causing the physical injury must be real and proximate. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2002), and Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2003). In order to understand how this rule operates, it must be noted that when a prisoner files a multi-claim or multi-defendant suit, the prisoner will incur a strike when any claim against any of the respondents in the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); Shelley v. Lechleitner, 2008 WL 5263778, *1 (W.D.Wis. 2008)(applying George in concluding that "[o]n at least three prior occasions, this court has dismissed at the screening stage at least one claim raised in petitioner's previous complaints for one of the reasons listed in § 1915(g)").

II. The plaintiff shall have through April 9, 2009, in which to report whether, at the time his request to proceed in forma pauperis was filed in this action, he was ineligible to proceed in that fashion based on the circumstances described in Part I of this Entry. III. The action is stayed except as to the directions in Part II until the plaintiff has proceeded as directed and the court has made any order required by the information which is provided. Consistent with the foregoing stay, all pending motions are denied without prejudice. So ordered.

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Chief Judge United States District Court Date: 3/18/09

Distribution: Conzalos Glasco DOC 890756 Plainfield Correctional Facility 727 Moon Road Plainfield, IN 46168 Akia Haynes [e-mail] Laura Lee Bowker [e-mail]