Young v. Haas
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (The following document(s) were not submitted to the Office of the Clerk: completed USM-285) filed by Timothy Doyle Young, 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pau peris (The following document(s) were not submitted to the Office of the Clerk: Summons, USM-285 forms) filed by Timothy Doyle Young in that it is RECOMMENDED that said motions be DENIED and that Plaintiff be assessed the $400.00 filing fee. Objections to R&R due by 5/30/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 5/16/17. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Timothy Doyle Young,
U.S. Attorney (S.D. OH.),
Case No. 17-cv-194
JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
Magistrate Judge Kemp
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Timothy Doyle Young, a federal inmate in Colorado, filed
this civil rights action against the United States Attorney for
this District and against Karen L. Haas, the clerk of the United
States House of Representatives.
His complaint is brief: he
alleges that the United States Attorney for the Southern District
of Ohio violated his rights by not responding to a court order
issued in Case No. 2:13-cv-981, and that Ms. Haas violated his
rights by not accepting a certified letter he sent her.
letter, a copy of which is part of exhibits filed by Mr. Young on
March 27, 2017 (Doc. 5, page 82) asks the House to begin
impeachment proceedings against Judge Neil Gorsuch, who was at
that time a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
(Judge Gorsuch is now, of course, Justice Gorsuch).
alleges that failure of both officials to respond has placed his
life in danger, either by “adding to the underlying case in #13cv-681" or by “Obstructing Justice which includes life-saving
treatment for Hepatitis-C....”
He has moved for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.
This is not the first case which Mr. Young has filed here
even though he is incarcerated in Colorado.
transferred the earlier case to which the complaint refers to the
District of Colorado.
However, it also dismissed a second case
filed here in 2013 on grounds that Mr. Young had accumulated
three “strikes” by having cases dismissed as malicious or
frivolous or for failure to state a claim, making him ineligible
to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
v. United States, Case No. 2:13-cv-833 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2014).
Perhaps because he is a “three strikes” inmate, Mr. Young
has included the statements in his current complaint about his
life being in danger.
Such an inmate may be relieved of the
requirement to pay the full filing fee if he can show that he is
facing “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
Simply repeating those words in a complaint is not
enough to satisfy the statute, however.
First, the law is clear that the alleged danger which might
justify allowing the prisoner to proceed despite his three prior
“strikes” must be related to claims in the complaint; that is,
“the prisoner's complaint seek to redress an imminent danger of
serious physical injury and that this danger must be fairly
traceable to a violation of law alleged in the complaint.” Pettus
v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 2009).
threat of serious physical injury “must be real and proximate.”
Rittner v. Kinder, 290 Fed.Appx. 796, 797 (6th Cir. Aug. 20,
Moreover, “[a]llegations ... that are conclusory,
ridiculous, or clearly baseless do not suffice to allege imminent
Tucker v. Pentrich, 483 Fed.Appx. 28, 30 (6th Cir. May
15, 2012), citing Rittner, supra.
Here, the complaint contains no facts from which it could be
plausibly inferred that either the failure of the United States
to respond to an order issued in Case No. 2:13-cv-681 or the
failure of the Clerk of the House of Representatives to accept
Mr. Young’s certified letter endangered his health in any way.
Neither is there any indication that he is, in fact, in imminent
danger of harm.
His allegations are simply insufficient to allow
the Court to excuse him from the requirement that he pay the full
filing fee for this case.
Consequently, it is recommended that
the pending motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs.
4 and 6) be denied and that Mr. Young be assessed the $400.00
filing fee, to be paid within thirty days.
recommendation is accepted, he should also be advised that if he
does not pay the fee, the action will be dismissed and will not
be reinstated even upon subsequent payment of the filing fee.
See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 609 (6th Cir. 1997).
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file
and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,
together with supporting authority for the objection(s).
of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.
objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,
may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the
right to have the district judge review the Report and
Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the
right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the
Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
/s/Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge
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?