DEMOS v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 12/30/16. (sr, )
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS,
Civil Action No. 16-8861
UNITED HEALTH GROUP, et al.,
John Michael Vazgucz, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff, who is an inmate at the Washington State Penitentiary, seeks to bring this action
inforniapauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1915. D.E. 1-2. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court denies Plaintiffs application to proceed in fonnapauperis and directs the Clerk of the Court
to close the file, without prejudice to Plaintiffs paying the required filing fee in order to file his
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct poses a threat to the free market, restrains
competition, and is in violation of United States anti-trust laws. Plaintiff alleges that he brings this
action in the capacity of a private attorney general and seeks damages for Defendants’ alleged
STANDARD FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil
action in Jbrtna pauperis “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an aclion 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
§ 1915(g). To count as a dismissal or “strike,” a prisoner’s entire action or appeal must be
dismissed pursuant to an enumerated ground for dismissal in Section 19 15(g). Byrd
715 F.3d 117, 125 (3d Cir. 2013).
While incarcerated, Plaintiff has filed more than three prior actions in this district alone
that constitute strikes under Section 1915(g). See, e.g.. Demos v. United States Secretary of Def.
Civ. No. 12-7854, D.E. 3 (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2013) (dismissing complaint for failure to state a claim);
Ryan, Civ. No. 00-921, DR 2 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2000) (same); Demos
Co.. Civ. No. 94-5309, D.E. 9 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 1995) (same); Demos
Doe, Civ. No. 94-4780,
D.E. 3 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 1994) (dismissing complaint as frivolous pursuant to Section 1915).
Moreover, Plaintiffs applications to proceed in fornia pauperis have been denied in other civil
actions in this jurisdiction because he has received three strikes. See Demos v. Doe. Civ. No. 055806, D.E. 3 (D.N.J. Mar. 24, 2006); Demos
Doe, Civ. No. 05-5687, D.E. 3 (D.N.J. Mar. 27,
2006); Demos v. Doe, Civ. No. 05-5843, D.E. 3 (D.N.J. Apr. 4, 2006). As a result, Plaintiff is
prohibited from bringing this complaint without prepayment of the filing fee unless, at the time lie
filed the complaint, he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.
Allegations of imminent danger must be construed liberally in Plaintiff’s favor. See Gibbs
Cross. 160 F.3d 962, 966 (3d Cir. 1998). But here, even when liberally construed, Plaintiffs
pleading cannot be read to suggest that he faced any danger of serious physical injury when he
filed his complaint. Therefore. Plaintift’s application to proceed infomniapauperis is denied. The
Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file, without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a paid
complaint. An appropriate form of Order accompanies this Opinion.
Dated: December 30, 2016
JOHN N1ICHAEL VAZQUOZ%LI1J. D.J.
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?