HAMPTON v. KNIGHT et al

Filing 32

Entry Denying Motion to Revoke In Forma Pauperis Status - Accordingly, the ruling granting Hampton permission to proceed in forma pauperis was appropriate and the motion to revoke in forma pauperis status [dkt 29] is DENIED. **See Order** Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/2/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

EDWARD M. HAMPTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.

AARON COX T.C. Director,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-00202-TWP-DKL

Entry Denying Motion to Revoke In Forma Pauperis Status
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Aaron Cox (“Cox”) Motion for Revocation
of Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status. Cox points out that the Plaintiff Edward M. Hampton
(“Hampton”) has filed three cases that have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The in forma
pauperis statue prohibits a plaintiff who has accumulated three “strikes” from proceeding in forma
pauperis. That statute provides: “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (emphasis added).
Cox is correct that on the following occasions, Hampton brought a lawsuit that was
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim: (1) Hampton v. Fee, et al, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00379-JTM-RBC (N.D. Ind. Dec. 10, 2014); (2) Hampton v. Indiana Dep’t of Corrs.,

et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-01966-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind. Dec. 30, 2015); and (3) Hampton v. Hinton,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00006-SEB-DKL (S.D. Ind. Jan. 25, 2016). Cox is correct that Hampton
has three “strikes.” But the last strike was incurred on January 25, 2016, the same day the present
lawsuit was filed. Accordingly, at the time this lawsuit was filed, Hampton had not earned a strike
on three prior occasions. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, the ruling granting Hampton
permission to proceed in forma pauperis was appropriate and the motion to revoke in forma
pauperis status [dkt 29] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 8/2/2016
Distribution:
EDWARD M. HAMPTON
988987
PENDLETON - CIF
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5124 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
All electronically registered counsel