Davis v. Wyandotte County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 3

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this order to submit the $350.00 filing fee. Failure to pay the full filing fee by that time will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 12/05/06. (smnd)

Download PDF
Davis v. Wyandotte County Sheriff's Department et al Doc. 3 Case 5:06-cv-03334-SAC Document 3 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS GARFIELD DAVIS, Plaintiff, vs. WYANDOTTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION No. 06-3334-SAC ORDER A prisoner confined in the Wyandotte County Detention Center in Kansas City, Kansas, presents a pro se civil complaint in which he seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. The Prison Litigation Reform Act enacted in April 1996 substantially altered the manner in which indigent prisoners may proceed in the United States District Courts. present case, 1915 now provides that: "In 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 dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may Significant to the Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:06-cv-03334-SAC Document 3 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 2 of 3 be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) (as amended April 26, 1996). Court records reflect that plaintiff's litigation history in federal courts brings him within this statutory provision.1 Although plaintiff broadly states his confinement in the Wyandotte Adult Detention Center subjects him to "imminent danger of serious physical injury," the court finds this vague and conclusory statement is insufficient to establish a credible real or proximate threat of injury for the purpose of excusing plaintiff from the fee obligation in 1915(g). 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. See White v. State of Colo., 157 F.3d 1998)(prisoner fails to qualify for imminent danger exception under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) if complaint makes only vague and unspecific allegations), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1008 (1999). Accordingly, plaintiff may proceed in this matter only if he pays the $350.00 fee required for filing this civil action. IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to submit the $350.00 filing fee. Failure to pay the full filing fee by that time will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. See Davis v. Robinson, Case No. 92-3118-DES(complaint dismissed as frivolous); Davis v. State of Kansas, Case No. 94-3177RDR(complaint dismissed as frivolous); Davis v. U.S. Attorney General, Case No. 95-3102-DES (complaint dismissed as frivolous and abusive). 2 1 Case 5:06-cv-03334-SAC Document 3 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 3 of 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 5th day of December 2006 at Topeka, Kansas. s/ Sam A. Crow SAM A. CROW U.S. Senior District Judge 3

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?