Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner is not entitled to proceed IFP on appeal and the appeal is dismissed. The Clerk's office is directed to change the caption of this case to reflect that Young Yil Jo is the proper Petitioner in this case. The Clerk's office is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the parties and to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed)(MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
YOUNG YIL JO,
SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, )
and MR. PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES BARACK
This matter is before the court on Petitioner Young Yil Jo’s1 (“Jo”) Notice of
Appeal, filed on June 10, 2013. (Filing No. 2.) Jo did not submit a Motion for Leave
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on Appeal, and did not pay the $455.00
appellate filing fee. (See Docket Sheet.) The court has carefully reviewed the record
and finds that the appeal cannot be processed.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not proceed IFP
in a civil action, or appeal a judgment in a civil action, if the prisoner has, on three
or more occasions, while incarcerated, brought an action or appeal in federal court
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). An exception is made
for prisoners who are under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id.
The court notes that the name “Joshua Lopez” is included in the caption of
Jo’s complaint; however, the complaint is signed by Young Yil Jo, and there is no
indication that Joshua Lopez agreed to participate in this lawsuit. Therefore, the court
does not recognize Joshua Lopez as a Petitioner in this case.
The court has reviewed the United States Case/Party Index and finds that Jo is
an experienced pro se litigant with an extensive history of abusive filings in federal
district courts. To date, Jo has filed over 400 federal civil lawsuits in 34 federal
district courts. He has been barred from proceeding IFP by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
because he has three or more strikes, a fact he has been informed of numerous times.
See, e.g., Joe v. Bush, No. 1:2004-CV-3830 (N.D. Ill. June 14, 2004); Joe v. Bush,
No. 1:2004-CV-8065 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2005); Bustamante v. Six Unknown Names
Agents, 1:09-CV-7154 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2009); and Gutierrez-Arias v. Six Unknown
Agents, et al., 3:10-CV-105 (N.D. Ind. April 23, 2010).
Here, Jo has not shown that he faces any danger or physical injury. Thus, he
is not permitted to proceed IFP in this court and he is not entitled to proceed IFP on
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Petitioner is not entitled to proceed IFP on appeal and the appeal is
The clerk’s office is directed to change the caption of this case to reflect
that Young Yil Jo is the proper Petitioner in this case.
The clerk’s office is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum and
Order to the parties and to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
DATED this 24th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge
*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.
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?