Coleman #173324 v. Vroman et al

Filing 52

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 47 ; Defendant's Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status 31 is granted; Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status is revoked; Plaintiff is required to submit the entire filing fee within 30 days or the case will be dismissed; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDRE LEE COLEMAN, #173324
Case No. 1:10-cv-354

Plaintiff,

HON. JANET T. NEFF

v
AARON J. VROMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was granted
leave to proceed as a pauper on April 27, 2010 (Dkt 3). On January 10, 2011, Defendant Vroman
filed a motion requesting that the Court revoke Plaintiff’s pauper status (Dkt 31). The Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R), recommending that this Court grant
Defendant’s motion (Dkt 47). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation (Dkts 48, 50).1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues
this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined that several of Plaintiff’s
previous cases qualify for purposes of the “three strikes” rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s

1

Plaintiff filed an Objection (Dkt 48) to Defendant’s reply brief and subsequently filed another
Objection (Dkt 50) objecting to the R & R. The Court does not address the propriety of these distinct
filings since both Objections merely address the overall issue presented, and both Objections are
without merit.

objections are without merit. Plaintiff has three cases that so qualify. Contrary to Plaintiff’s
argument, in Coleman v. Lentin, 2:92-cv-120 (W.D. Mich., Aug. 31, 1992), Plaintiff’s case was
dismissed as frivolous and without merit pursuant to the R & R (2:92-cv-120, Dkt 3), which the
district court adopted as its opinion (Pl’s. Obj., Dkt 50, Ex. 1). Further, to the extent Plaintiff argues
that § 1915(g) applies only after an appeal has been either waived or resolved, the pending appeal in
Coleman v. Sweeney, 2:09-cv-178 (W.D. Mich., Oct. 8, 2009), has been resolved: Plaintiff’s case was
dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the Judgment was affirmed on appeal on March 29, 2011.
In Coleman v. Kinnunen, 2:05-cv-256 (W.D. Mich., Mar. 17, 2008), Plaintiff’s case was dismissed
for failure to state a claim, not by some other procedural mechanism, and was affirmed on appeal
(2:05-cv-256, Dkts 57-58, Dkt 63 at 2). See Pointer v. Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369, 377 (6th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff’s objections are denied.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court.
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkts 48, 50) are DENIED and the Report
and Recommendation (Dkt 47) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma
Pauperis Status (Dkt 31) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status is REVOKED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is required to submit the entire $350.00 filing
fee2 within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Order; Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in
2

The Court’s records indicate that Plaintiff has paid only the initial filing fee of eighty-three
cents ($0.83). Thus, Plaintiff still owes three hundred forty-nine dollars and seventeen cents

2

dismissal of this action (any such dismissal will not, however, negate Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the
filing fee in full).

/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

27
Dated: May ___, 2011

($349.17) of the filing fee.

3