Foster v. Lombardi et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 8 MOTION for Reconsideration re 6 Order of Dismissal (case - Stipulation of Dismissal) filed by Plaintiff William Wentworth Foster motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/13/16. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WILLIAM WENTWORTH FOSTER,
GEORGE LOMBARDI, et al.,
No. 1:16-CV-241 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff=s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
of his complaint.
Plaintiff asserts that the Court erred in failing to believe his claims of
“imminent danger” in his complaint.
Plaintiff, a prisoner, has filed at least three previous cases that were dismissed as
frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), therefore, the
Court may not grant a motion to proceed in forma pauperis unless plaintiff “is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury.”
In his complaint, plaintiff asserted that he despite his “three strikes” status, he should be
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis because he and “thousands of other inmates” cannot afford
hygiene items from the canteen and are therefore forced to buy them from predatory inmates.
Plaintiff even goes so far as to say that these predatory inmates are gang members and threaten
he and other prisoners. Plaintiff claims that he and others could be assaulted by one of these
inmates in the future, if he is unable to pay back his loans.
See Foster v. Moore, No. 2:91-CV-4539 (W.D. Mo.); Foster v. Malone, No. 2:90-CV-4058
(W.D. Mo.); and Foster v. Rutledge, No. 2:89-CV-4496 (W.D. Mo.).
As noted in the Court’s prior orders, however, plaintiff did not allege that he recently
received a credible threat or that correctional officers have refused recent requests for protection.
His other claims of physical harm refer to incidents that occurred in 2014 and 2015, which do not
qualify as imminent danger.
See Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998).
Additionally, plaintiff has not explained why he has gone to these particular “predatory” inmates
to borrow money, or why he has not sought protective custody.
As a result, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of
this action. Plaintiff has not shown that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the
time of filing this action.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. #8] is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this action would not be taken in good
Dated this 13th day of October, 2016.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?