HENLEY v. HARDESTY-MONTGOMERY et al

Filing 11

Entry Rescinding In Forma Pauperis Status - The grant of leave to proceed in forma pauperis is REVOKED. The reason for this ruling is that the plaintiff was not eligible to proceed in that fashion at the time he filed this lawsuit. The plaintiff s hall have through July 8, 2015, in which to pay the filing fee for this action. No initial partial filing fee was paid. Accordingly, the balance due is Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00). Failure to timely pay the filing fee in full will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/24/2015.(MGG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JAMES HENLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BETH HARDESTY-MONTGOMERY,
ASHLEY HARDESTY-MONTGOMERY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-00845-TWP-DKL

Entry Rescinding In Forma Pauperis Status
The court may, in appropriate circumstances, rescind a decision to grant a litigant in forma
pauperis status. Wartman v. Branch 7, Civil Division, County Court, 510 F.2d 130, 133 (7th Cir.
1975). This is an appropriate case for such action.
The grant of leave to proceed in forma pauperis is REVOKED. The reason for this ruling
is that the plaintiff was not eligible to proceed in that fashion at the time he filed this lawsuit. More
specifically, the plaintiff is a prisoner and has on three or more prior occasions brought an action
or appeal that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous or failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Thus, he was ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). It can be added here that the narrow exception to the barrier created by § 1915(g)–
where a prisoner alleges that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury”–does not
apply to the claims or allegations in the complaint.
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:
Henley v. Aramark, 3:15-cv-95-RLM (N.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2015) (dismissing action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
Henley v. Harris, 1:14-cv-317-WTL-DML (S.D. Ind. April 21, 2014) (dismissing action
for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
Henley v. Marion County Public Defender, 1:14-cv-1050-JMS-DKL (S.D. Ind. Sept. 8,
2014) (dismissing action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
The plaintiff shall have through July 8, 2015, in which to pay the filing fee for this action. No
initial partial filing fee was paid. Accordingly, the balance due is Four Hundred Dollars
($400.00). Failure to timely pay the filing fee in full will result in dismissal of this action without
further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 6/24/2015
Distribution:
JAMES HENLEY
150168
MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
3038 West 850 South
BUNKER HILL, IN 46914