Knight v. Smith et al
Filing
2
ORDER AND REASONS denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 7/17/2012. (cms, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PHILLIP JOASPH KNIGHT
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 12-1861
CORNEL SMITH, ET AL.
SECTION “S” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff, Phillip Joasph Knight, an inmate currently incarcerated in the Louisiana
State Penitentiary, in Angola, Louisiana, has submitted an application to proceed in
forma pauperis in connection with the above-captioned complaint. Plaintiff has alleged
medical malpractice and negligence against the Warden and health care providers for
changing his medication and the administration of the medication. This is a nondispositive pretrial matter which was referred to the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(B)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321,
signed into law on April 26, 1996, now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), provides that a
prisoner shall not be allowed to bring a civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if he
has, on three 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 grounds
that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted,
unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Plaintiff is a frequent litigant in this Court. While incarcerated, he has filed
numerous civil rights complaints, at least three of which were dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, and/or for failure to state a claim. He has accumulated three “strikes” under
the PLRA. See Knight v. Guste, et al., Civil Action 07-503 “I”(5) (E.D. La.); Knight v.
Colens, et al., Civil Action 06-4538 “J”(2) (E.D. La.); Knight v. Benge, et al., Civil
Action 06-4537 “S”(3) (E.D. La.). Accordingly, plaintiff may not proceed as a pauper
in this action unless he fits within the “imminent danger” exception of § 1915(g).
In the instant case, plaintiff’s claims amount to a disagreement with the
defendants’ judgment and prescribed course of treatment. However, allegations about
the quality of medical care are insufficient to satisfy the exception to § 1915(g). Edmond
v. Texas Department of Corrections, et al., 161 F.3d 8, 1998 WL 723877 (5th Cir.
October 7, 1998) (not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter); Lewis Lyles v.
Dretke, 2009 WL 722076) (E.D. Tex.) (allegations that plaintiff was denied any
medication for high blood pressure despite 87 requests to the medical department is not
sufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g)); Horace Alexander v. Quarterman, 2009
WL 1041812 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (allegations that plaintiff is not being treated for high
2
blood pressure and gastrointestinal problems is not sufficient to invoke the exception to
§ 1915(g)). Imminent danger of serious physical injury is not implicated by plaintiff’s
claims. Consequently, plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Phillip Knight’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of July, 2012.
SALLY SHUSHAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?