Sherrod v. Douglas County Nebraska et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (Filing No. 2 ) is denied. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order to either show cause why this case should not be di smissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g) or pay the court's $400.00 filing and administrative fees. The clerks office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter with the following text: December 20, 2013: deadline for Plaintiff to show cause or pay fees. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JAMES EDWARD SHERROD, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY NEBRASKA, and SAMUEL W. COOPER, Esq., Deputy County Attorney, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:13CV339 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Filing No. 2.) Plaintiff is a prisoner incarcerated at the Lincoln Correctional Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. He is an experienced pro se litigant with an extensive history of filings in this court. As set forth in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 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., 4:00CV3322 (D. Neb. March 26, 2001), Filing No. 9 (dismissing complaint as frivolous); and 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. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (Filing No. 2) is denied. 2. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order to either show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) or pay the court’s $400.00 filing and administrative fees. 3. The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter with the following text: December 20, 2013: deadline for Plaintiff to show cause or pay fees. DATED this 20th day of November, 2013. BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf Senior 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. 2

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?