DIRING v. WEXFORD MEDICAL et al
ENTRY RESCINDING DENIAL OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUSAND DISCUSSING PENDING MOTIONS - 9 Motion for Emergency Hearing is denied. 10 Motion to Amend Injunction for Relief is granted. 11 Motion for Subpoena for Camera Evidence is denied. 16 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/10/2017. (MEJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CHRISTOPHER J. DIRING,
RACHEL H. Director of Medical,
STANLEY KNIGHT Superintendent,
CHASITY, JOHN DOES, JANE DOES,
ENTRY RESCINDING DENIAL OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
AND DISCUSSING PENDING MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court on several pending motions. Plaintiff Christopher J.
Diring has filed a motion for emergency hearing, [dkt. 9], motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [dkt. 16], motion for subpoena, [dkt. 11], motion to amend injunction for relief from
serious medical needs, [dkt. 10] and motion for preliminary injunction [dkt. 18]. The Court will
address each motion below.
I. Imminent Danger Exception
As an initial matter, the Court rescinds its earlier Entry denying in forma pauperis status
and directing Mr. Dirig to pay the filing fee. See [dkt. 5]. In that Entry, the Court found that the
plaintiff has “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) of the prison litigation reform act (PLRA),
by filing at least three suits or appeals which have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for
failure to state a claim. The purpose of the PLRA is to curtail abusive prisoner litigation. Section
1915 “only allows a prisoner to file three meritless suits at the reduced rate provided by that
section.” Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir.2001). “After the third
meritless suit, the prisoner must pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates suit.” Id.
Mr. Dirig has filed a number of motions alleging that his claims satisfy the “imminent
danger of serious physical injury” exception to the three strikes rule. “In order to meet the
imminent danger requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the threat or prison condition [must be]
real and proximate.” Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
omitted) (being denied psychiatric medication causing heart palpitations, chest pains, labored
breathing, choking sensations, and paralysis in plaintiff’s legs and back adequately alleged
imminent danger of serious physical injury). The alleged danger must also exist at the time the
complaint is filed. Id. Past injuries that have not recurred do not invoke the imminent danger
Mr. Dirig alleges that he is experiencing ongoing pain and suffering related to his injuries
caused by a 400 pound weight machine that fell on him on June 1, 2017, with such force as to
injure his neck and head. He alleges that the defendants have failed to respond to his requests for
treatment and he is being denied pain medications and examinations. He alleges he is
experiencing dizziness, bloody noses, nausea, urinating on himself, vomiting, burning of the
spine, and an inability to walk or stand without a walker or other assistance. The Court finds that
Mr. Dirig has adequately alleged the imminent danger exception to the three strikes rule.
II. Pending Motions
Mr. Dirig’s motion to set emergency hearing to consider imminent danger exception,
[dkt. 9], is denied because a hearing on this issue is not necessary at this time.
Mr. Dirig’s motion to amend injunction for relief from serious medical needs, [dkt. 10], is
granted to the extent that the Court has determined that his allegations satisfy the imminent
danger provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Mr. Dirig’s motion for subpoena for camera evidence, [dkt. 11], is denied because his
request for “camera evidence” is too vague.
Mr. Dirig’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, [dkt.16], is granted. Based on the
funds in his trust account [dkt. 21], it is not feasible to assess an initial partial filing fee at this
time. Notwithstanding this ruling, Mr. Dirig still owes the $350.00 filing fee. “All [28 U.S.C.] §
1915 has ever done is excuse pre-payment of the docket fees; a litigant remains liable for them,
and for other costs, although poverty may make collection impossible.” Abdul-Wadood v.
Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir. 1996).
Mr. Dirig’s motion for preliminary injunction relates to claims that have arisen at
Westville Correctional Facility after this action was filed. As such, any new claims would
involve different defendants and different circumstances not relevant to this action. Therefore,
the motion for preliminary injunction, [dkt. 18], is denied.
The Court will screen the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A in a separate
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHRISTOPHER J. DIRING
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
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?