Chapman v. Hartmann et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Chapman's Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 12 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BILLIE JOE CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff,

8:17CV460

vs.
KLAUS HARTMANN, M.D. in Official
and/or individual Capacity; and
LINCOLN REGIONAL CENTER, in
Official and/or indiviual Capacity;

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.
Plaintiff Billie Joe Chapman (“Chapman”) has filed what the court construes
as a Motion for Reconsideration and a Notice of Change of Address. (Filing No.
12.) See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment permitted if filed
no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) (“[T]he
court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment [or]
order,” for any “reason that justifies relief.”).
On February 6, 2018, the court dismissed this case without prejudice due to
Chapman’s failure to update his address within the time ordered by the court and
his failure to comply with this court’s orders. (Filing No. 9.) In the Memorandum
and Order dismissing this case, the court noted that a copy of the court’s order
requiring Chapman to update his address (Filing No. 6) had been mailed to the
Lincoln Regional Center (“LRC”), where Chapman indicated he might be moved,
and his last known address. (See Filing No. 9, n.1.) In his present motion,
Chapman indicates his address is at the LRC, but he appears to claim, liberally
construed, that he did not receive notice of the court’s order requiring him to
update his address.

Chapman is obligated to keep the court informed of his current address at all
times, regardless of any notice he does or does not receive from the court. See
NEGenR 1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro se parties to adhere to local rules and inform
the court of address changes within 30 days). Even if the court were to excuse
Chapman’s failure to timely update his address, his motion for reconsideration still
fails because Chapman has not demonstrated good cause for why this case should
not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
On December 15, 2017, the court ordered Chapman to show cause why he is
entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (See Filing No. 5.) The court
has previously determined that three or more federal court cases brought by
Chapman, while a prisoner, were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a
claim. See Chapman v. Chief Executive Officer, Case No. 8:15CV259 (D.Neb.)
(Filing No. 9, August 19, 2015 Memorandum and Order dismissing action
pursuant to PLRA’s “three strikes” provision). The Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”) prevents a prisoner with “three strikes” from proceeding IFP unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Chapman’s present motion for reconsideration does not respond to the
court’s order to show cause, but rather the motion merely contains an updated copy
of the Complaint with newly attached exhibits. Nothing in the Complaint suggests
that Chapman is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Chapman alludes to
the possibility of forced medication by LRC, but this harm is speculative at best
and the court previously found such allegations insufficient to demonstrate
imminent danger of serious physical injury in another recent case filed by
Chapman. (See Filing No. 13, Case No. 8:17CV425). The court notes that
Chapman filed a response to a “three strikes” order to show cause in one of his
other civil cases, Case No. 8:17CV465, during the time frame in which he was
required to show cause in the present case. (See Filing No. 12, Case No.
8:17CV465.) Even if the court were to consider that response for purposes of this
case, it would fail to support a finding that Chapman is under imminent danger of

2

serious physical injury as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See Filing No. 15,
Case No. 8:17CV465.) Accordingly,
IT IS THEREOFRE ORDERED
Reconsideration (Filing No. 12) is denied.

that

Chapman’s

Motion

Dated this 8th day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3

for