Moshir v. Captain Conley et al
Filing
9
Memorandum of Opinion and Order for the reasons set forth herein Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must, wi thin 30 days from the date of this Order, pay the entire filing fee of $400.00. No other documents will be accepted for filing unless Plaintiff pays the filing fee in full. If Plaintiff does not pay the full filing fee within thirty 30 days, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/12/2017. (E,CK)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ALI MOSHIR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN CONLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:17CV1546
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 2]
Pending before the Court is Pro se Plaintiff Ali Moshir’s Motion to Proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2). This case has been transferred from the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York. See Decision and Order (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff, an inmate at
the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (“NEOCC”) at the time he filed this in forma pauperis
civil rights action against Defendants Captain Conley, United States Marshal, Warden Larose,
State of Ohio, County of Mahoning, the Federal/U.S. Government, the NEOCC, Corrections
Corporation of America (“CCA”)/Core Civic, and Chief Yemma, alleges in his Complaint (ECF
No. 1) that he was improperly disciplined and placed in the segregation unit. ECF No. 1 at
PageID#: 5.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis if the
prisoner, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated, brought a civil action that was
dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim on which
relief could be granted, absent allegations suggesting that he is in imminent danger of serious
(4:17CV1546)
physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Although the Sixth Circuit has not offered a precise
definition of “imminent danger,” it has suggested that the threat of serious physical injury “must
be real and proximate.” Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App’x 796, 797 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008). Past
allegations of danger, as well as allegations “that are conclusory, ridiculous, or clearly baseless
do not suffice to allege imminent harm.” Tucker v. Pentrich, 483 F. App’x 28, 30 (6th Cir. May
15, 2012).
Plaintiff has on at least three prior occasions filed a civil action in federal court that was
summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim.1 Furthermore, the instant action does not
contain allegations suggesting he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury due to
Defendants’ actions. ECF No. 1 at PageID#: 5. Therefore, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma
pauperis in this case.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied, and
this action is dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he
must, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, pay the entire filing fee of $400.00. No
other documents will be accepted for filing unless Plaintiff pays the filing fee in full. If Plaintiff
does not pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision
could not be taken in good faith
1
See Moshir v. NEOCC, et al., Case No. 4:17CV1106 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31. 2017)
(Pearson, J.); Moshir v. Valentine, Case No. 4:17CV1459 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2017)
(Pearson, J.); Moshir v. NEOCC, et al., Case No. 4:17CV1480 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 13, 2017)
(Pearson, J.).
2
(4:17CV1546)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 12, 2017
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
3
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?