TAYLOR v. VAISVILAS et al

Filing 103

ENTRY - The motions for appointment of counsel [dkt. 100 and dkt. 102 ] are denied as having been filed in the wrong forum. The plaintiff's request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [dkt. 101 ] is denied. The reason for this ruling is that he is ineligible for this statute because of having acquired three or more "strikes" through having litigation to which he was a party in a federal court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted or as frivolous. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/20/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOSEPH TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1436-JMS-DKL

Entry Concerning Selected Matters
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are pending, makes
the following rulings:
1.

The motions for appointment of counsel [dkt. 100 and dkt. 102] are denied as

having been filed in the wrong forum.
2.

The plaintiff’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [dkt. 101] is

denied. The reason for this ruling is that he is ineligible for this statute because of having
acquired three or more “strikes” through having litigation to which he was a party in a federal
court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted or as frivolous.1
Therefore, he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis unless the exception under 28 U.S.C. §
1

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. For the plaintiff’s reference, the cases on which the court relies in finding
three or more “strikes” consist of the following:
Taylor v. City of New Albany, No. IP 91-607-C (S.D.Ind. September 27, 1991)(dismissal of action
as frivolous)
Taylor v. Gustafson, No. IP 91-1251-C (S.D.Ind. November 14, 1991)(dismissal of action as
frivolous)
Taylor v. Faith, No. IP 92-1426-C (S.D.Ind. October 27, 1992)(dismissal of action as frivolous)
Taylor v. Faith, No. IP 91-1734-C (S.D.Ind. January 14, 1992)(dismissal of action as frivolous)

1915(g), that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury,” applies. The Seventh
Circuit has explained that “imminent danger” requires a “real and proximate” threat or prison
condition. See Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003). The court has considered
the record under review, as well as the request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, and finds
that he is not under imminent danger of serious physical injury insofar as that term is used in 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11/20/2013
Date: __________________

Distribution:
Joseph A. Taylor
DOC # 905002
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
All Electronically Registered Counsel

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana