BARNES v. THE PHILADELPHIA MINT AND RESERVE FOR WASHINGTON D.C.
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 10/5/2011. (eaj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JAMES ANTHONY BARNES,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
THE PHILADELPHIA MINT AND
:
RESERVE FOR WASHINGTON, D.C., :
:
Defendant.
:
Civil Action No. 11-4519 (FLW)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
APPEARANCES:
JAMES ANTHONY BARNES, Plaintiff pro se
#507188
Mercer County Correction Center
P.O. Box 8068
Lambertville, New Jersey 08610
WOLFSON, District Judge
Plaintiff James Anthony Barnes, a state inmate presently
confined at the Mercer County Detention Center in Lambertville,
New Jersey, 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’s Complaint alleges unintelligible claims against
the Philadelphia Mint and Reserve for Washington D.C..
The
Complaint is a handwritten jumble of allegations that are mostly
incomprehensible, rambling and incoherent.
The mostly
indecipherable allegations appear to involve numerous
unidentified persons and unrelated incidents involving the sale
of drugs, pornography, homosexuality and alleged sexual assaults.
Plaintiff offers delusional and incoherent rants about homosexual
behavior, money laundering, bank robbery and misuse of U.S.
currency at the Philadelphia Mint and Reserve.
The Complaint is
somewhat duplicative (except that it names a different defendant)
of several, earlier submitted Complaints that were
administratively terminated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1
Plaintiff does not indicate the relief he seeks.
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
1
Barnes v. Mercer County Correction Center, et al., Civil
No. 11-3554 (FLW); Barnes v. Thomas, Civil No. 11-3555 (FLW);
Barnes v. Dunkin Donuts, et al., Civil No. 11-3761 (FLW); Barnes
v. Department of Corrections, et al., Civil No. 11-3762 (FLW);
Barnes v. 7-Eleven, Civil No. 11-3763 (FLW); Barnes v. Internal
Affairs, et al., Civil No. 11-3798 (FLW); Barnes v. Trenton
Psychiatric Hospital, Civil No. 11-4028 (AET). Barnes has
continued to submit Complaints for filing, making similar
incoherent allegations against different defendants, including
this one and the following: Barnes v. Trenton Police Department,
et al., Civil No. 11-4402 (FLW); Barnes v. Mercer County
Correction Center, et al., Civil No. 11-4520 (FLW); Barnes v.
Trenton Municipal Court, Civil No. 11-4624 (JAP); Barnes v.
Mercer County Correction Center, Civil No. 11-4641 (FLW); Barnes
v. Mercer County Superior Court, Civil No. 11-4777 (FLW); Barnes
v. St. Francis Hospital, Civil No. 11-4812 (FLW); and Barnes v.
Mercer County Health Department, Civil No. 11-4995 (FLW).
2
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
(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., Barnes v. Mercer County Court
House, Civil No. 07-1194 (FLW); Barnes v. Trenton State Prison
3
Medical Department, Civil No. 09-1604 (GEB); Barnes v. Trenton
Police Department, Civil No. 09-5934 (JAP).
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 his Complaint, Plaintiff makes no allegations or claims
of “imminent danger.”
Rather, the Complaint appears to involve
past incidents of delusory and ludicrous acts of homosexual,
sexual and other outrageous behavior by mostly unidentified
persons allegedly against Plaintiff.
As referenced above, the
threat of imminent danger must be prospective and cannot relate
to a past incident of harm as alleged here.
F.3d at 312.
See Abdul-Akbar, 239
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 Defendant
has violated any state or federal law, or otherwise violated
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
However, this Court finds
that Plaintiff has not demonstrated “imminent danger” in order to
override the “three strikes” requirement of § 1915(g).
4
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
filing fee within 30 days, Plaintiff may move to reopen his case,
if he so chooses.
s/Freda L. Wolfson
FREDA L. WOLFSON
United States District Judge
Dated: October 5, 2011
5
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?