FARROW v. MIDDLE TWP. POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 12/12/2012. (nz, )n.m.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JASON I. FARROW,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
MIDDLE TOWNSHIP. POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 12-7539 (RBK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
APPEARANCES:
JASON I. FARROW, Plaintiff pro se
#697845-765204B
Kintock 3 Building 1
50 Fenwick Street
Newark, New Jersey 07114
KUGLER, District Judge
Plaintiff Jason I. Farrow, a state inmate presently confined
at the Kintock 3 Halfway House in Newark, New Jersey, at the time
he submitted this action for filing, seeks to bring this civil
action in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
For the
following reasons, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis will be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this Complaint against the following
defendants: Middle Township Police Department; Patrolman Joshua
Brent; Detective Don Nelson; John Does 1-5; Michelle L. DeWeese,
Assistant Prosecutor; and the Cape May Prosecutor’s Office.
(Complaint, Caption and ¶ 2).
Plaintiff alleges various claims
of malicious prosecution, official and reckless misconduct,
misrepresentations, breach of oath, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, false imprisonment, racial discrimination,
fraud, deceit, abuse of process, malicious use of process and
negligence against all defendants regarding criminal proceedings
instituted against Plaintiff on or about May 23, 2006 through
June 2, 2011.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages
in excess of $ 1.75 million, as well as injunctive relief
compelling the termination of Assistant Prosecutor DeWeese and
the investigation of the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding violations of 18
U.S.C. § 242.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks to proceed with this action in forma
pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), enacted
on April 26, 1996, prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil
action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal 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); see also Keener
v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 128 F.3d 143, 144-45
2
(3d Cir. 1997) (holding that frivolousness dismissals prior to
enactment of PLRA count as "strikes" under § 1915(g)).
A
prisoner who has three or more such dismissals may be excused
from this rule only if he is "under imminent danger of serious
physical injury."
Id.
When deciding whether an inmate meets the
“imminent danger" requirement, a court must examine the situation
faced by the inmate at the time of the filing of the complaint,
and a showing of danger in the past is insufficient to
demonstrate “imminent danger.”
Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d
307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001).
An examination of court records reveals plaintiff has filed
numerous civil actions in the District of New Jersey.
At least
three of these actions have been dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
See, e.g., Farrow v. Township of Middle
Township, et al., Civil No. 03-316 (JBS); Farrow v. Cape May
County Superior Court, et al., Civil No. 09-1636 (RBK); and
Farrow v. Johnson, et al., Civil No. 12-4101 (RBK).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has reached the statutory limit as
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is precluded from seeking in
forma pauperis status based on the “three strikes” rule unless he
alleges facts to show that he is in “imminent danger of serious
physical injury”, which would excuse him from the restrictions
under § 1915(g).
In this Complaint, Plaintiff makes no allegations or claims
of “imminent danger.”
Rather, the Complaint appears to involve
3
past criminal proceedings and allegations of malicious
prosecution, which are insufficient to show that Plaintiff is in
imminent danger of real harm.
As referenced above, the threat of
imminent danger must be prospective and cannot relate to a past
incident of harm.
See Abdul-Akbar, 239 F.3d at 312.
Therefore,
because the Complaint in this action does not contain sufficient
allegations reasonably suggesting that Plaintiff is in “imminent
danger of serious physical injury”, which would excuse him from
the restrictions under § 1915(g), Plaintiff may not proceed in
forma pauperis.
This Court makes no findings as to whether or not Defendants
have violated any state or federal law, or otherwise violated
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Rather, this Court finds only
that Plaintiff has not demonstrated “imminent danger” in order to
override the “three strikes” requirement of § 1915(g).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to proceed
in forma pauperis will be denied, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).
As set forth in the accompanying Order, Plaintiff’s
case will be administratively terminated.
Upon submission of the
$350.00 filing fee within 30 days, Plaintiff may move to reopen
his case, if he so chooses.
An appropriate Order accompanies
this Opinion.
S/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
Dated: December 12, 2012
4
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?