Williams v. Nurse Donald et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 5 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel [Doc. # 3 ] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 7/13/15. (KXS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

SAMUEL H. WILLIAMS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
NURSE DONALD, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:15-CV-873-AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of Samuel H. Williams’ motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #5]. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied and
this action will be dismissed, without prejudice.
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center. He
initially filed this action on or about June 1, 2015, however he did not apply for in forma pauperis
status until June 23, 2015. It appears that plaintiff has filed at least three previous cases that were
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.1 As such, under 28 U.S.C. '
1915(g), plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis unless he was Aunder imminent
danger of serious physical injury@ at the time the complaint was filed. See Martin v. Shelton, 319
F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (imminent danger of serious physical injury must exist at the time
the complaint is filed).
After reviewing the complaint, the Court finds no allegations indicating that plaintiff was
in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this action on or about June 1, 2015.
1

See Williams v. Russell, No. 4:11-CV-611-RWS (E.D. Mo.); Williams v. Russell, No.
4:11-CV-1590-RWS (E.D. Mo.); Williams v. Saublel, No. 2:08-CV-4218-NKL (W.D. Mo.).
1

In addition, plaintiff=s factual allegations are incoherent and delusional and fail to state a claim or
cause of action under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

He states, for instance that he saw Nurse Donald

roughly two years ago for back pain, during which time she was learning to draw blood and
about six months later he received a notice that he needed to take the drug metformin for
diabetes. He further alleges that the medical staff keep trying to kill him with this diabetes
medication.
For these reasons, the Court will deny plaintiff's motion for in forma pauperis status and
will dismiss this action without prejudice to refiling as a fully paid complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #5] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc. #3] is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 13th day of July, 2015.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2