Martin v. Ramey et al

Filing 5

Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Related doc #'s 2 , 4 ) are denied and action is dismissed without prejudice under § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to re-file, he must pay the full filing f ee of $400 and file a Motion to Re-Open within thirty days of this Order. The Clerk's Office is directed not to accept a Motion to Re-Open unless it is accompanied by the full filing fee. No other documents will be accepted for filing unl ess the entire filing fee is paid and the Motion to Re-Open is granted. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 3/8/2018. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASHIER RAMEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1: 17 CV 2195
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:

Pro se Plaintiff Robert Martin, a prisoner incarcerated in the Grafton Correctional
Institution and serving a life sentence for murder, has filed an in forma pauperis Complaint in
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the prison cashier and multiple prison
employees and officials. (Doc. No. 1.) He alleges Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his medical needs and have taken his property (money for various charges made to his prison
account) without due process of law.

Under the three strikes rule set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not bring a
civil action or appeal in forma pauperis if he has on three or more prior occasions while
incarcerated brought a federal court action or appeal that was dismissed on the grounds that it
was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless
the prisoner demonstrate he was under “imminent danger of physical injury” at the time his
Complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App’x 796, 797–98 (6th
Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff is a frequent filer in federal court with far more than three prior actions or
appeals that were dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous, malicious, or for failure
to state a claim. See e.g., Martin v. PNC Capital Investment Advisors, et al., Case No. 16 CV
1828 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 7, 2016) (citing prior dismissed federal cases brought by Martin).
Further, the Court does not find Plaintiff qualifies for the imminent danger exception
to the three strikes rule. His allegations regarding charges he was required to pay from his
prisoner account do not plausibly suggest he was in imminent danger of physical harm at the
time he filed his Complaint. Nor do his allegations regarding his medical care. Plaintiff
complains of transfers and the treatment he has received over many years for persistent, ongoing chronic medical conditions, including a cataract condition. While his allegations
suggest he has not received the treatment he desired, they do not reasonably suggest he was
exposed to imminent danger of physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint. The threat
of serious physical injury “must be real and proximate.” Rittner, 290 F. App’x at 797. Past
allegations of danger, as well as allegations that are conclusory, ridiculous, or “clearly
baseless” do not suffice to allege imminent harm. Id.
-2-

Accordingly, this case is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. Nos. 2 and 4) is therefore denied, and this
action is dismissed without prejudice under § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to re-file this case,
he must pay the full filing fee of $400 and file a Motion to Re-Open within thirty (30) days of
this Order. The Clerk’s Office is directed not to accept a Motion to Re-Open unless it is
accompanied by the full filing fee. No other documents will be accepted for filing unless the
entire filing fee is paid and the Motion to Re-Open is granted.
The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from
this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Dated: March 8, 2018

-3-