Sherrod v. Lacey et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the court's previous Memorandum and Order, granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 6 , is stricken. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 remains pending. Pl aintiff has until March 3, 2014, to either show cause why he is entitled to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) or pay the full $400.00 filing and administrative fees. In the absence of either action by Plaintiff, this matter will be dismissed without further notice. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter with the following text: March 3, 2014: Deadline for Plaintiff to show cause or pay full filing fee. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JAMES EDWARD SHERROD,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY E. LACEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:14CV3003

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On January 24, 2014, the
court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”).
(Filing No. 6.) However, upon further review, it appears that Plaintiff is not entitled
to proceed IFP in this matter without first showing a danger of imminent harm. As
set forth in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner cannot:
[B]ring a civil action . . . or proceeding [in forma pauperis] if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action . . . 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.
28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
This court’s records reflect that Plaintiff must be barred from proceeding IFP
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has, on at least three prior occasions while
incarcerated, brought cases that were dismissed on the grounds that they were
frivolous or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Sherrod v.
State of Nebraska, et al., No. 4:02CV3129 (D. Neb. March 17, 2003), Filing No. 50
(dismissing amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted); Sherrod v. Kenney, et al., No. 4:00CV3322 (D. Neb. March 26, 2001),

Filing No. 9 (dismissing complaint as frivolous); Sherrod v. Hopkins, et al., No.
4:92CV3178 (D. Neb. Aug. 10, 1992), Filing No. 16 (dismissing complaint as
frivolous).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and
Order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), or pay the full $400.00 filing and administrative fees. In the
absence of good cause shown, or the payment of the necessary fees, this action will
be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
The court’s previous Memorandum and Order, granting Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (filing no. 6), is stricken. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (filing no. 2) remains pending.
2.
Plaintiff has until March 3, 2014, to either show cause why he is entitled
to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) or pay the full $400.00 filing and
administrative fees. In the absence of either action by Plaintiff, this matter will be
dismissed without further notice.
3.
The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this matter with the following text: March 3, 2014: Deadline for Plaintiff
to show cause or pay full filing fee.
DATED this 4th day of February, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge
2

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
3