Moment v. Morgan

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 3/29/17 sat). Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 3/29/2017. (sat, Chambers)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * MICHAEL MOMENT, #454279; 1109451, * * * * * Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. PWG-17-786 * J. PHILIP MORGAN, Warden, * * Defendant. *** MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Michael Moment filed this Complaint with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on March 10,2017. ECF Nos. 1,2. Moment states he was transferred to the Maryland Correctional Institution-Jessup on February 28, 2017, and has since filed two Administrative Remedy Procedure ("ARP") requests informing Defendant that he is illegally incarcerated. CompI. 3. Moment states that he was told that this issue was not "grievable" in an ARP. Id. Further, he avers that nobody would sign his second ARP request. Id. As relief, Moment requests a hearing and $7 million. Id. Moment has accumulated "three strikes" under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. S 1915(g), and is barred from filing cases unless he pays the filing fee or demonstrates that he is in "imminent danger of serious physical injury." Id; see also Moment v. Dwight Dave Jackson, Civil Action No. PWG-16-4040 (D. Md. February 15, 2017) (assigning Moment's third "strike" under 28 U.S.C. PWG-16-3976 U.S.C. S 1915(g)); Moment v. Danai, Civil Action No. (D. Md. February 15, 2017) (assigning Moment's S 1915(g)); second "strike" under 28 Moment v. Mortel, Civil Action No. 'PWG-16-3966 (assigning Moment's first "strike" under 28 U.S.C. S 1915(g)). Moment's allegations fail to suggest that he i~ in imminent danger of serious physical injury, and he is therefore not excused him from paying the $400.00 filing fee. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 11~2i~II Date I S 1915(g) by separate order. Paul . Grimm United States District Judge ' 2

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?