Gordon v. Public Safety and Corrections et al

Filing 6

RULING: The above-captioned proceeding be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of Plaintiff to pay the Court's filing fee. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 1/26/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CURTIS GORDON (#080114)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

NO. 16-0504-JWD-EWD

RULING
On October 12, 2016, pursuant to the Athree strikes@ provision of 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g), the
Court determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and
ordered him to pay, within 21 days, the full amount of the Court=s filing fee. R. Doc. 4.

Plaintiff

was placed on notice that a failure to comply with the Court=s Order Ashall result in the dismissal
of Plaintiff=s Complaint without further notice from the Court.@ Id.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. ' 1915, a prisoner filing a civil action or appeal in federal
court may be granted in forma pauperis status but is nonetheless required to pay the full amount
of the Court=s filing fee over time in incremental installments.

However, such incremental

payments are not allowed and pauper status shall be denied where the prisoner has filed, on at least
three prior occasions while incarcerated, actions or appeals that have been dismissed as legally
baseless.

Specifically:

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).

In the instant case, Plaintiff has, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated,
brought actions or appeals in the federal courts that have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious
or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 1

Accordingly, pursuant to

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996), and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g), this Court directed
Plaintiff to pay the full amount of the Court=s filing fee within 21 days.

A review of the record

by the Court reflects that Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee as ordered.2

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned proceeding be dismissed, without prejudice,
for failure of Plaintiff to pay the Court=s filing fee.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this

26th day of January, 2017.

S
JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1. Cases or appeals filed by the plaintiff that have been dismissed by the federal courts
as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim include, but are not limited to, Curtis Gordon
v. Frank Mayberry, et al., Civil Action No. 93-0499-FJP-SCR (M.D. La.), Curtis Gordon v. John
P. Whitley, et al., Civil Action No. 93-0856-FJP-SCR (M.D. La.)(counting as two strikes because
appeal also dismissed as frivolous), Curtis Gordon v. John P. Whitley, et al., Civil Action No. 930878-FJP-SCR (M.D. La.), Curtis Gordon v. Sgt. McKnight, et al., Civil Action No. 94-0001-FJPSCR (M.D. La.), Curtis Gordon v. A. J. Dunn, et al., Civil Action No. 94-0039-FJP-SCR (M.D.
La.), Curtis Gordon v. Sgt. Fontaine, et al., Civil Action No. 94-0040-FJP-SCR (M.D. La.)(appeal
dismissed as frivolous), Curtis Gordon v. R. White, et al., Civil Action No. 94-0086-FJP-CN (M.D.
La.), Curtis Gordon v. John P. Whitley, et al., Civil Action No. 94-1698-FJP-CN (M.D. La.),
Curtis Gordon v. A. J. Dunn, et al., Civil Action No. 94-2586-JVP-CN (M.D. La.), Curtis Gordon
v. J. L. Bolden, et al., Civil Action No. 95-0158-JVP-SCR (M.D. La.), and Curtis Gordon v. J. L.
Bolden, et al., Civil Action No. 95-0594-JVP-CN (M.D. La.).
2 The record reflects that on or about November 1, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an Objection
in response to the Court’s determination that he was not entitled to proceed as a pauper in this case.
See R. Doc. 5. Plaintiff’s Objection, however, was not filed into the record because Plaintiff failed
to comply with Local Rule 5(e) of this Court and submit his Objection for electronic transmission
to the Court for filing. In addition, notwithstanding notice and an opportunity to re-submit his
Objection, Plaintiff has not done so.