Pinson v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis and is granted to 5/30/13 to submit $350 filing fee. Failure to file a timely response will result in dismissal of this matter without prejudice. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 4/30/2013. Mailed to pro se party Jeremy Pinson by regular mail (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JEREMY PINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 13-3079-SAC

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is a civil rights action filed by a prisoner in the
United

States

Penitentiary,

Administrative

Maximum

(ADX),

in

Florence, Colorado. Plaintiff is subject to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars a prisoner from proceeding in forma
pauperis where the prisoner has on 3 or more occasions filed actions
or appeals in a federal court that were dismissed on the grounds that
they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim for relief
unless the plaintiff establishes imminent danger of serious physical
harm.1
Plaintiff proceeds on a complaint that he and another prisoner
at ADX originally filed together in a separate action. The court
concluded that allowing multiple prisoners subject to § 1915(g) to
proceed

together

is

contrary

to

the

intent

of

that

section.

Accordingly, the court directed the clerk of the court to file a
separate action with Pinson as the sole plaintiff.
To satisfy the pleading requirements of § 1915(g), a prisoner
1

See Pinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2012 WL 3872015, *1, n.1 (W.D. Okla. 2012),
identifying qualifying strikes.

“must make specific, credible allegations of imminent danger.” Hafed
v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172, 1176 (10th Cir.
2011)(internal quotations and citation omitted).
In this case, the plaintiff alleges that the conditions of his
confinement at ADX are filthy and result in exposure to infectious
diseases, a situation plaintiff links to decisions by defendants to
place mentally ill inmates in the facility. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8).

The

complaint broadly alleges these conditions are part of an intentional
plan by the defendants, who are employed in the Bureau of Prisons North
Central Regional Office in Kansas City, Kansas.
The court has studied the complaint and concludes the plaintiff
has not made an adequate showing of imminent danger. First, the
complaint alleges that the conditions have existed for at least five
years (id., p. 8), that plaintiff was placed in the segregated housing
unit for two days in December 2012, and that he was deprived of
medications for asthma and seizures for an unspecified period. (id.,
p. 10). The complaint, however, was filed as an amended complaint in
Case No. 13-3002 on March 4, 2013, shortly after plaintiffs filed a
notice of interlocutory appeal in that matter. Based on these
circumstances, the court concludes plaintiff Pinson has not shown that
he is in danger of imminent physical danger.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff Pinson is denied
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and is granted to and including
May 30, 2013, to submit the $350.00 filing fee to the clerk of the
court. The failure to file a timely response will result in the
dismissal of this matter without prejudice.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

This 30th day of April, 2013, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge