DEMOS v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP et al

Filing 2

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Not for Publication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,
Plaintiff
Civil Action No. 16-8861
v.
OPINION
UNITED HEALTH GROUP, et al.,
Dc/i?ndants.

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
complaint.
I.

BACKGROUND
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
wrongful conduct.
II.

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
U.S.C.

§ 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

i

Shannon,

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);
Demos

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

i’.

i’.

Warner-Lambert

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

i

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.
lQlS(g).

7

§

Allegations of imminent danger must be construed liberally in Plaintiff’s favor. See Gibbs
1’.

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

7

JOHN N1ICHAEL VAZQUOZ%LI1J. D.J.

3