Hall v. Smith et al

Filing 3

ORDER AND REASONS denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CURTIS HALL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO.

RANDY SMITH, ET AL.

SECTION: AH@(5)

17-2118

ORDER AND REASONS
The instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding was filed in forma pauperis by pro se Plaintiff,
Curtis Hall, against Defendants alleging improper medical care at the St. Tammany Parish
Jail.

(Rec. doc. 1).

He requests monetary compensation and injunctive relief.

This is a

non-dispositive 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)(1).
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.
Hall, a frequent litigant in federal court, has filed numerous civil actions while
incarcerated.

The Court’s records establish that at least four of his prior § 1983 complaints

were dismissed as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. See Curtis Hall v. James LeBlanc, et al., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-00674-PM-KK (W.D. La.);
Curtis Hall v. James LeBlanc, et al., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-00023-PM-KK (W.D. La.); Curtis Hall v. La.
Dept. of Public Safety & Corr., C.A. No. 5:13-cv-00908-EEF-MLH (W.D. La.); Curtis L. Hall v. St.

Tammany Parish, et al., C.A. No 10-1872 “C”(2) (E.D. La.).

He has therefore accumulated

three “strikes” under the PLRA.
He may not proceed as a pauper in this action unless he fits within the “imminent
danger” exception of § 1915(g), which applies to prisoners “under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.”

In the present case, Plaintiff has not alleged, nor does his

complaint demonstrate, that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Consequently, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th

day of

March

, 2017.

MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2