Barbour v. Clinton

Filing 3

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Barbour's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 1 is DENIED, and the case closed. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 4/13/2011. Mailed to Barbour. (TAG, )

)':"/' r-:- 'l

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 'II',L.~~.
,j
,- I • _ ~

, , i .)

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA 20Il :~J~13 pr]] 2 22
BILLINGS DIVISION

BY

---­('/
Dr DUTY
~,

""~,

".-.-.. ­

'./ .t ,'\?\

KENNETH EDWARD BARBOUR, Cause No. CV-1l-36-BLG-RFC-CSO
Plaintiff,
vs.

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

42nd PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES-WILLIAM
JEFFERSON CLINTON, in his
official and individual capacity,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Kenneth Barbour is incarcerated at the Red Onion State
Prison in Pound, Virginia. He has submitted a Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis (Court Doc. 1) and a proposed prisoner civil rights
complaint (Court Doc. 2). The named Defendant is former President
William Jefferson Clinton. Barbour is proceeding without counsel.
Barbour is not a Montana inmate (see www.app.mt.gov/cgi­
binlconweb) and does not appear to have any connections to Montana.
Since November 2008, Barbour has filed close to 200 actions in the
United States federal courts.
The three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides as

follows:
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.
Barbour has had at least three non-habeas civil complaints or
appeals previously dismissed as frivolous or for failing to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. See Barbour v. Virginia Department
of Corrections, et aL, 7:09cv00091 (W.D.Va April 8, 2009); Barbour v.
Stanford, et al., 7:09cv77 (W.D. Va. April 7,2009); Barbour v. Virginia
Department of Corrections, 7:09cv83 (W.D. Va. April 6, 2009), Barbour
v. Chief Federal District Judge District of Hawaii Som, 1:11cv0021O­
LEK-RLP (April 6, 2011). Therefore, Barbour falls squarely within the
three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and he may not proceed in
forma pauperis unless he is in "imminent danger of serious physical
injury,1f 28 U.s.C. § 1915(g).
Barbour seeks to impose liability upon former President Clinton
for signing the Prison Litigation Reform Act (lfPLRA") in 1996. He asks
-2­

that the PLRA be repealed. Barbour makes no allegation of being in
imminent danger of serious physical harm.
While the Court ordinarily gives litigants a period of time to pay
the full filing fee of $350.00, it will not do so in this case. Barbour has
been previously advised of having three strikes. Moreover, his claims
in this matter are frivolous as Mr. Clinton is entitled to absolute

immunity from damages as to conduct within the scope of his official
duties, which includes signing legislation. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 731, 749, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 2701, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982).
Barbour has a history of abusing the system and filing frivolous
lawsuits. Long before he filed this action, Barbour knew, from his
previous filings, that he would not be permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis.
Because Barbour is not entitled to a ten-day period to object, this
Order will be entered directly upon endorsement. See Minetti v. Port of
Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).
No motion for reconsideration will be entertained.

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the

-3­

following Order be issued by Judge Cebull.

DATED this a:ay of April, 2

J
United St tes Magistra

dge

Based upon the above Recommendation by Judge Ostby, the
Court issues the following:
ORDER
1. Barbour's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Court Doc. 1)

is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and enter
judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. No motions for reconsideration or rehearing will be entertained
and the Clerk of Court ~~ected to discard any such motions.
DATED thisLl day of April, 2010.

United States District Judge
-4­