BRAY v. LEMMAN et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying as moot 20 Motion to Amend. Kashmir Bray was notified that he had accumulated three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and hence was ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis. A copy of that Order is attached to this Ent ry and Order, identified as Exhibit 1. Accordingly, granting Bray's request to proceed in forma pauperis in this case was mistaken and is now rescinded. Consistent with the foregoing, Bray's request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 2 ) is DENIED. For the reasons set forth, this action is dismissed without prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/28/2011. (SMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

KASHMIR L. BRAY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
TALENS, Doctor, et al.,
Defendants.

2:11-cv-141-JMS-MJD

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
Kashmir Bray was notified in Bray v. Buss, 2:10-cv-237-PPS-APR (N.D.Ind. July
15, 2010), that he had accumulated three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and hence
was ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis. A copy of that Order is attached to this Entry
and Order, identified as Exhibit 1.
Accordingly, granting Bray’s request to proceed in forma pauperis in this case was
mistaken and is now rescinded. Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725 (7th Cir. 2008).
Consistent with the foregoing, Bray’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is
denied.
II.
In order to proceed in forma pauperis despite the circumstances described and
ruling made in Part I of this Entry, Bray’s allegations would have to show that he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. “In order to meet the imminent danger
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the ‘threat or prison conditions [must be] real and
proximate.’ When prisoners seeking to avoid the three strikes provision ‘allege only a past
injury that has not recurred, courts deny them leave to proceed IFP.’” Ciarpaglini v. Saini,
352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir.
2002)). Bray’s allegations do not meet this standard.

III.
Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999), dictates that in the
circumstances noted in Part I of this Entry the action must be dismissed. “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.” Id.
That is the disposition which is compelled here. The action is dismissed without
prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
The motion to amend [20] is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11/28/2011
Date: _________________
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana