Parrish v. Thorn
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff is granted to and including February 10, 2012, to submit the $350.00 filing fee. The failure to pay the full filing fee by that time will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 1/10/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Daniel Joseph Parrish by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DANIEL JOSEPH PARRISH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 11-3229-SAC
SUE THORN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner in state custody, brings a civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he complains that his
rights were violated by a correctional officer at the Larned
Correctional Mental Health Facility. While plaintiff asserts claims
of criminal intent, criminal threat, stalking, computer crimes, and
falsely reporting a crime, it appears the defendant issued a
disciplinary report to the plaintiff on December 23, 2011, charging
him with insubordination and disrespect and with work performance
violations (Doc. 1, p.9).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act substantially altered the
manner in which indigent prisoners may proceed in the United States
District Courts. Significant to the present case, §1915(g) 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 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).
Court records in the District of Kansas reflect that plaintiff
has filed more than thirty cases in this court, and that at least
three of those cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim for
relief.1
The court has examined the present complaint and finds no basis
to conclude that plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in this
matter without the prepayment of the full filing fee.
Plaintiff’s
claim does not suggest that he is in imminent danger of serious
physical harm.
Accordingly, plaintiff may proceed in this action
only if he pays the filing fee of $350.00 that is charged for filing
a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED that plaintiff is
granted to and including February 10, 2012, to submit the $350.00
filing fee.
The failure to pay the full filing fee by that time
will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.
1 Plaintiff has filed cases under different names,
including Daniel Joseph Kirwan, Michael Duane Pyle, Daniel
Joseph Parrish, Daniel Parrado, and Daniel Parrish-Parrado.
The cases identified as the basis of this order are Case No.
92-3357, Kirwan v. Larned Mental Health, 816 F. Supp. 672
(D. Kan. 1993)(dismissing as legally frivolous plaintiff’s
claims that officials’ continued use of his former legal
name, under which he was convicted, violated his
constitutional rights); Case No. 91-3217, Kirwan v. Huggins,
1991 WL 158842 (dismissing as frivolous plaintiff’s claim of
excessive heat and lack of electric fan); and Case No. 883416, Kirwan v. Appel, 1988 WL 142902 (dismissing for
failure to state a claim plaintiff’s allegations of denial
of use of a typewriter, writing table, and chair, and
allegations that defendant corrections employees sabotaged a
cell house and criminally defamed plaintiff).
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Topeka, Kansas, this 10th day of January, 2012.
S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
United States 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?