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 )
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?