Parrish-Parrado (ID 25121) v. Langford et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is denied. Plaintiff is granted to and including September 18, 2017, to submit the $400.00 filing fee. The failure to submit the fee will result in the dismissal of this matter without additional prior notice. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 08/18/17. Mailed to pro se party Daniel Joseph Parrish-Parrado by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DANIEL JOSEPH PARRISH-PARRADO,
CASE NO. 17-3140-SAC-DJW
DON LANGFORD, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 by a prisoner at the Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility,
Larned, Kansas (“LCMHF”).
The complaint names as defendants Warden Don Langford of the
LCMHF, the Larned Correctional Facility, the Kansas Department of
Corrections, and the State of Kansas.
The complaint alleges that since December 16, 2016, the LCMHF
has been operating without appropriate supplies such as bleach and
floor soap for sanitizing and has not provided shower shoes for
indigent prisoners. Plaintiff alleges these conditions constitute
federal aggravated criminal negligence and federal aggravated
criminal endangerment, and he asks the Court to force defendants to
immediately procedure these supplies and issue them to county jails,
state correctional facilities, and SRS. He also requests a desk study
lamp and an electric typewriter.
Plaintiff is subject to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
which bars him from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he
demonstrates that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm.
Section 1915(g) provides:
“In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal
a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this
section is 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 show that plaintiff has filed more than fifty 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 complaint and concludes plaintiff has
not established an imminent danger of serious physical harm. The Court
therefore will deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #2) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff is granted to and including
September 18, 2017, to submit the $400.00 filing fee. The failure to
submit the fee will result in the dismissal of this matter without
additional prior notice.
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 qualifying as strikes are: (1) 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); (2) 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 (3) Case No. 88-3416, Kirwan
v. Appel, 1988 WL 142902 (dismissing for failure to state a claim plaintiff’s
allegations of denial of use of typewriter, writing table, and chair, and allegations
that defendant corrections employees sabotaged a cell house and criminally defamed
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 18th day of August, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
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?