PARKER v. RATLIFF et al
Entry and Order Directing Dismissal of Action - Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2 ) is therefore DENIED. The plaintiff commenced the litigation under false pretenses. The only appropriate action in these circumstances is the immediate termination of the suit. The dismissal shall be without prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/7/2011. (JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
LT. RANDY RATLIFF, TERRY K
SNOW, SHERIFF BUD GARY,
Entry and Order Directing Dismissal of Action
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(Dkt. No. 2). Plaintiff’s complaint is accompanied by his request to proceed in forma
pauperis. Despite plaintiff’s present meager financial reserves, he is not entitled to the
relief requested due to prior frivolous litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As noted in Part
II of the Entry of December 7, 2005, in No. 1:05-cv-1592- RLY-TAB, this plaintiff has
“struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1
Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, unless the exception under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury,”
applies. Those circumstances are not presented by his claims in this case. The plaintiff’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is therefore DENIED.
In Evans v. Illinois Department of Corrections,150 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 1998), it was noted
that a prisoner-litigant in these circumstances is entitled to know the cases the court relies on
when making the three-strikes determination. These cases were identified in the Entry of
December 7, 2005, in No. 1:05-cv-1592- RLY-TAB and need not be repeated here.
In some circumstances, the plaintiff would at this point be given a period of time in
which to pay the filing fee. But not here. “A litigant who knows that he has accumulated
three or more frivolous suits or appeals must alert the court to that fact.” Ammons v.
Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59
(7th Cir. 1999)). The plaintiff did not do so, opting instead to mislead the court as to his
eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis. The consequence is clear:
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.
Sloan, 181 F.3d at 859.
The plaintiff commenced the litigation under false pretenses. The only appropriate
action in these circumstances is the immediate termination of the suit. The dismissal shall
be without prejudice.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marion County Jail
40 South Alabama Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?