Klein v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 153

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne : Ordering that the portion of the Order by the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 32 ) is VACATED. Plaintiff directed to pay the entire filing fee of $350.00. (neh, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
QUINN AARON KLEIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 14-144-JHP-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER VACATING ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
On March 3, 2014, this action was commenced in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee by Plaintiff Quinn Aaron Klein, an inmate in the custody
of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections who was incarcerated at Davis Correctional
Facility (DCF) in Holdenville, Oklahoma. (Dkt. 1). At the direction of that court (Dkt. 5),
plaintiff subsequently filed two motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 8, 28),
but he did not provide a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement as directed. On
Aprill4, 2014, the Tennessee Middle District granted plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and transferred the case to this court, because all of plaintiff's claims arose

during his incarceration at DCF. (Dkt. 32). Upon review of the record, however, this court
fmds the Tennessee Middle District's order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis was
erroneous and must be vacated, because plaintiffhas accumulated-more than three prior civil
rights actions that count as "strikes," pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1915(g):

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil
action or proceeding under this section 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
ffiJUry.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). These strikes include the following cases.

Klein v. Gatlin, No. CIV-98-149-:rvm (N.D. Okla. Apr. 13, 1998): Civil rights action
against the parents of plaintiff's former girlfriend was dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, and the court determined the dismissal was a "prior
occasion" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Attachment 1. 1

Klein v. Gatlin, No. CIV-98-150-TCK (N.D. Okla. Apr. 6, 1998): Civil rights action
against plaintiff's former girlfriend was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, and the court determined the dismissal was a "prior occasion" under
28 U.S.C_. § 1915(g). See Attachment 2.

Klein v. Jones, No. CIV-11-601-HE, 2011 WL 5526049 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 14, 2011):
Civil rights action concerning plaintiff's conflict with another inmate and his access to the
courts was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Klein v. Chester, No. CIV-12-033-HE (W.D. Okla. June 14, 2012): The claims in this
civil rights action included complaints about the warden's response to plaintiff's Request to
Staff, the alleged opening of plaintiff's legal mail, delays in delivering plaintiff's legal mail
and in timely crediting his account with funds from his family, retaliation, excessive
commissary costs, and denial of access to the courts. The action was dismissed for failure
to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, with the admonition that "this dismissal will ripen

1

Orders that are not available through the court's electronic records are attached to this
Opinion and Order.
2

into a 'strike' under the three-strikes rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act as soon as the
time to appeal has expired or, ifplaintiff appeals, in the event the court of appeals affirms this
dismissal." Id., slip op. at 1-2.

Kleinv. Fallin, No. CIV-12-637-HE,2012 WL3594668(W.D. Okla.Aug.21,2012):
Plaintiff sued the State of Oklahoma and the Governor of Oklahoma in this civil rights action
concerning the equal protection rights ofhomosexuals. The case was dismissed, because the
Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiff's claim against the State of Oklahoma, and he lacked
standing to prosecute the claim against the Governor.
Plaintiff alleges in his present complaint that prison officials are holding his legal mail
and stealing stamps from the envelopes, thereby preventing him from exhausting his
administrative remedies. He further complains the defendants discriminate against him,
because he is a known homosexual. The court, however, fmds he has not demonstrated he
is in imminent danger of serious physical injury and that he qualifies for the exception in 28

u.s.c. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff cannot claim ignorance of the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because
after the above-cited cases were dismissed, and before the case now before this court was
filed on March 3, 2014, he was denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the Western
District of Oklahoma for having accrued at least three strikes. See Klein v. Rios, No. CIV12-1292-HE, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 25, 2013).
The Western District also found that plaintiff"has a pattern and practice of bringing
civil actions in [theWestern District], only to voluntarily dismiss them after significant time
and effort has been expended by the Court and the parties." Id., No. CIV-12-1292-HE,
Report and Recommendation at 4 n.2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 28, 20 12) (citing Klein v. Whetsel,

3

No. CIV-05-1494-T; Klein v. Victorian, No. CIV-12-565-HE; Klein v. Keefo, Inc., No. CIV12-142-HE; Klein v. GEO, No. CIV-12-124-HE; and Klein v. Lincoln County Dist. Ct., No.
CIV-05-838- T).
Plaintiff has perhaps done so in an effort to avoid the "three strikes" rule in the
PLRA. In any event, aside from the PLRA strikes provision, a court has
discretion to impose filing restrictions where a litigant continues to abuse his
right to seek legal redress. Ysais v. Richardson, 603 F. 3d 1175, 1180 (lOth
Cir. 2010) ("Federal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities
of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under
appropriate circumstances."). Plaintiff is hereby cautioned that continuation
of this practice could lead to imposition of such filing restrictions.

Klein, No. CIV-12-1292-HE, Report and Recommendation at 4 n.2. See also Klein v.
Salinas, No. CIV-13-1182-HE, slipop. at4(W.D. Okla. Nov.15,2013) (relying on Case No.
CIV-12-1292-HE to fmd plaintiffhad accumulated three strikes and denying leave to proceed

in forma pauperis); Klein v. Gwinn, No. CIV-13-1207-HE (W.D. Okla. Sept. 27, 2013)
(adopting the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that plaintiffs could not be granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, because of his prior strikes).
Despite his history of filing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits, plaintiff completely
failed to reveal his litigation history in this action. In response to the question in the
complaint form regarding his prior litigation, he checked "No" to the following question:
D. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
1) Have you begun other lawsuits in state or federal court dealing with the
same facts involved in this action or otherwise relating to the conditions of
your imprisonment?
(Dkt. 1 at 5). Plaintiff then signed and dated the following statement on the last page of the
complaint:
DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

4

The undersigned declares (or certifies, verifies, or states) under penalty
of perjury that he is the plaintiff in the above action, that he has read the above
. complaint, and that the information contained therein is true and correct. 28
U.S.C. § 1746. 18 U.S.C. § 1621.
(Dkt. 1 at 7).
The court fmds plaintiff clearly failed to answer truthfully the question about his
litigation history, and he was on notice that his response was made under penalty of perjury.
ACCORDINGLY, the portion of the Order by the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Tennessee granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt.
32) is VACATED, because the Tennessee court failed to consider plaintiffs numerous
strikes imposed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff is directed to pay the entire filing
fee of $350.00, which was due when he initiated this case. The agency having custody of
· plaintiff is ordered to release funds from plaintiffs accounts, including plaintiffs trust
account, for payment of the filing fee. Failure to pay the entire filing fee or to show good
cause for his failure to pay the entire filing fee will result in dismissal of this action. The
Court Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Opinion and Order to the Trust Fund Officer
at plaintiffs facility.
DATED this 14th day ofNovember 2014.

mesH. Payne
nited States District Judge
Eastern District of Oklahoma

5

ATTACHMENT 1

Klein v. Gatlin, No. CIV-98-149-MB

(N.D. Okla. April13, 1998)

IN THE UNJTBD STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR nm NORTHERN msiiucr OF OKLAHOMA

QUINN AARON KLEIN,
~laindft:

vs.
MR. & MRS. JOHN GATLIN,

Defendants.

APR1319~

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

F 1L E D
PhJJ Lombaltlf, Clerk
U.S. DISTRICT COURT

No. 98-CV-149-BU (M)

/"

ENTERED ON DOCKET

DATE

APR 14 1998

ORDER

Plaintiff; a prisoner confined at the Oklahoma State Reformatory in Granite, Oklahoma, seeks
to bring this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit in forma pauperis against the parents of his former
girlfiiend, Mr. & Mrs. John Gatlin. Based on representations in the motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, it appears that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee and he is granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. However, under 28 U.S.C.§ 191S(e)(2), part of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), the Court is directed to dismiss a suit brought in forma pauperis at any

time if the Court determines that it is fiivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. For the

reasons discussed below, the Court finds that this case should be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

A.

Failure to allege prima facie elements of a eivU rights claim

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that while he was Uving with Defendants• daughter, ..He
(Defendant [Mr. Gadin]) busted out the window ofmy apt. bedroom window and removed several

things not belonging to his daughter." Plaintiff seeks "reimbursement for missing articles, cut sheets

ftomglass out ofbroke window, & pain, grief& su1fering. 11 (Docket #I).
42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides individuals a federal remedy for deprivation of their rights secured
by the Constitution and laws of the United States. ~Dixon y. City of Lawton, 898 F.2d 1443,
1447 (1Oth Cir. I990). For a complaint under section 1983 to be sufficient a plaintiff must allege two
prima facie elements: that defendant deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution and laws
ofthe United States,1 and that defendant acted under color oflaw.2 Adi((kes y S H Kress & Co ,
398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure S(a) sets up a liberal system of notice
pleading in federal courts. This rule requires only that the complaint include a short and plain
statement of the claim sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of the grounds on which it rests.
Leathennan y Tammt Cty Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993) (rejecting heightened pleading
requirements in civil rights cases against local governments). If plaintift's complaint demonstrates
both substantive elements it is sufficient to state a claim under section 1983. ld..; Meade y. Grubbs,
841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (lOth Cir. 1988).

A court should dismiss a constitutional civil rights claim only if it appears beyond doubt that
plaintiffcould prove no set of filets in support ofhis claim which would entitle him to relief. Meade.

1

The rights set forth in the Bill ofRigb.ts arc held exclusively by the states. seemed Jiom infiingement by the
federal government FJngg Brps y. Brooks. 436 U.S. 149 (1978). Therefore. constitutional civil rights claims of
individuals apply to the states only tbrough the Fourteenth Amendment and require state action to afford relief under
section 1983. ~Monroe y Pp. 365 U.S. 167 (1961), overruled on g1her grounds. Monell y. Dmt. of Social
Seryjces. 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The state action test requires: (1) that the deprivation be caused by the exeroise of a
right or privilege created by the state or by a person for whom. the slate is responsible. and (2) that the actor must be
someone who is a state actor. Lusarv Fmnmdmp ou Co. 457 U.S. 922 (1982).

There is~ overlap between the state action requirement tmder the Fourteenth Amendment and action under
color of law. ~I.Yar, 457 U.S. at 926. Where the plain1ifrhas already demonslrated state action under the first
element the necessity to show action under color of law is also satisfied.
2

2

841 F.2d at 1526 (citing Owens y, Rush, 654 F.2d 1370, 1378-79 (lOth Cir. 1981)). For purposes
ofrevieWing a complaint for fidlure to state a claim, all allegations in the complaint must be presumed
bue and construed in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Id..; Hall y BeUmo0s 935 F.2d 1106, 1109

(lOth Cir. 1991). While J)I.O..G complaints are held to less stringent standards and must be liberally

construed, nevertheless, the Court should not assume the role of advocate, and should dismiss claims
which are supported only by vague and conclusory allegations. Haines, 404 U.S. at 520; HalL 935
F.2d at 1110.

In the instant case, Plaintiffbas completely failed to allege a deprivation of a right secured by
the Constitution of the United States or to identifY any conduct whereby Defendants were acting
under color of state Jaw. Construing Plaintift's Complaint liberally in accord with his {lJll..G status,
the Court concludes that Plaintiffhas failed to establish the essential elements of a civil rights action
pursuant to section 1983: that defendant deprived him ofa right secured by the Constitution and laws

of the United States while acting under color of state law. Therefore, Plaintiffhas failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, and accordingly, his Complaint should be dismissed.

B.

Payment orming fee

Although Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the PLRA requires
the district court to assess and collect the $150 filing fee even when-a case is dismissed before service
ofthe summons and complaint.

B.= 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). As ofthe date ofPlaintifrs financial

certificate, Plaintifflacked funds to make even an initial partial fee payment. However, the trust fund
officer at Plaintiff's current place of incarceration is hereby ordered to collect, when funds exist,

monthly payments from Plaintiffs prison account(s) in the amol.mt of20% of the preceding month's
3

income credited to the account Monthly payments collected from Plaintiff's prison account(s) shall
be forwarded to the clerk ofcourt each time the account balance exceeds $10 until the full $150 filing
fee is paid. Separate deductions and payments shall be made with respect to each action or appeal

filed by Plaintiff. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, 411 United States Courthouse, 333 West
Fourth Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-3819, attn: PL Payments, and shall clearly identifY PlaintifFs
name and the case number assigned to this action. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the
trust fund officer at the Oklahoma State Refonnatocy, P.O. Box 514, Granite, OK 73547-0514.

This dismissal counts as one ofPiaintifrs three allotted dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Court also takes notice tbis dismissal constitutes the second time3 Plaintiff has brought a civil

action in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 which was dismissed for failure to state a claim or as
fiivolous.
CONaUSION

After bberally construingPJaintift's allegations, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972),
the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to allege either a deprivation of a right secured by the
Constitution of the United States or that Defendants acted under color of state law.

~ Ba1cer y,

McCollum, 443 U.S. 137 (1979); B.Q 11m Wilhelm v Gray, 766 P.2d 1357, 1358 (Okla. 1989).
Therefore~

Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191S(e)(2)(B) for

tailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, Plaintiff must nonetheless pay the
$150 filing fee in full.

"Ptaintil's other case filings in this Comt include: Case No. 97-CV-937·K. dismissed without prejudice on
January 30, 1998. for failure to pay initial partial payment of filing fee as ordered; and Case No. 98-CV-1 SO·K.
dismissed pursuant to§ 191S(e)(2)(B) tor failure to slate a
April. 1998.

cl•

•

4

0
0

I

I
!

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
I.

Plaintiffs motion for leave .to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However,
Plaintiff shall make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income
credited to his account(s). Prison officials having custody of Plaintiff shall forward
payments ftom PJaintill"s account(s) to the Clerk at the above-cited address each time

the ainount in the account(s) exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid.
2.

This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 191S(e)(2)(B).

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to 11flag" this dismissal as a aprior occasion" for
purposes of§ 191 S(g).

4.

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the trust fund officer at the Oklahoma
State Reformatory, P.O. Box 514, Granite. OK 73547-0514.

SO

ORD~ ~day ofApril, 1998.

s

ATTACHMENT 2

Klein v. Gatlin, No. CIV-98-150-TCK
(N.D. Okla. April6, 1998)

\,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THB NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
QUINN AARON KLEIN,
Plaintiff,

vs.
CASEY CffiUSTINE GATLIN,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Phil Lombardi!. Cl kU~JSTRICT '-iOURT

No. 98-CV-150-K /

ORDER

. P~ a prisoner confined at the Oldahoma State Reformatory in Granite, Oklaho~ seeks
to bring this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit In forma pauperis against his former girlfriend, Casey
Christine Gatlin. Based on representations in the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it
appears that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee and he is granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. However, under 28 U.S.C. § 191S(e)(2), part ofthe Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996
(PLRA), the Court is directed to dismiss a suit brought in forma pauperis at any time if the Court
determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetaly relief against a defendant who is immune ftom such relief. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court finds that this case should be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

A.

FaUure to aUege prima facies elements of a eivl rights daim
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 11failed to pay her part of the [telephone]

bills." Plaintiff further alleges that while he and Defendant were dating, Defendant made "verbal
agreements to pay bond money" to Plaintift's mother but has not kept her word. Plaintiff seeks •'fun

reliefofbond money and~ of phone bills along with cost for credit bankruptcy fees, and% of the
total motel rent for 4 weeks at $51.44 a week. 11 (Docket #1).

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides individuals a federal remedy for deprivation of their rights secured
by the Constitution and laws of the United States. .8.cADixon y City of Lawton, 898 F.2d 1443,
1447 (lOth Cir. 1990). For a complaint under section 1983 to be sufficient a plaintiff must allege two
prima facie elements: that defendant deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution and laws
ofthe United States,1 and that defendant acted under color oflaw. 2 Adickes y. S H Kress & Co.,
398 U.S. 144, ISO (1970). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure S(a) sets up a liberal system of notice
pleading in federal courts. This rule requires only that the complaint include a short and plain
statement of the claim sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of the grounds on which it rests.
Leatherman y Tammt Cty Narcotics Unit 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993) (rejecting heightened pleading
requirements in civil rights cases against local governments). lfplaintifl's complaint demonstrates

both substantive elements it is sufficient to state a claim under section 1983. Id..; Meade y Grubbs,
841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (lOth Cir. 1988).
A court should dismiss a constitutional civil rights claim only if it appears beyond doubt that
plaintiff could prove no set offilets in support of his claim which would entitle him to relie£ Mead§,.

1

The rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are held exclusively by the states. secured from iofiingement by the
federal government flag Bm y. Brooks. 436 U.S. 149 (1978). Therefore. coDStitutional civil rights claims of
individuals apply to the states ODly through the Fomteenth Amendment and require state action to atrord relief under
section 1983.. SmMonroe v. I'Jpe. 365 U.S. 167 (1961). oyenylecJ on gther pun4,, Monell y Dept of Social
Services 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The state action test requires: (1) that the deprivation be caused by the exercise of a
right or privilege created by the state or by a person for whom the state is responsible. and (2) that the actor must be
someone who is a state actor. Lupry f4mond&gn Oil Co. 457 U.S. 922 (1982).
2

1bere is an overlap between the state action requirement under the Fourteenth Amendment and action under
color of taw. ~l.um. 457 U.S. at 926. Where the plaintiifhas already demonstrated state action under the first
element the necessifJ to show action under color of law is also satisfied.

2

841 F.2d at 1526 (citing Owens y. Rush, 654 F.2d 1370, 1378-79 (lOth Cir. 1981)). For purposes

ofreviewing a complaint for failure to state a daim, all allegations in the complaint must be presumed
true and construed in a light most favorable to plaintiff. ld.; Hally. BeJJmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109
(lOth Cir. _1991). While~ complaints are held to less stringent standards and must be liberally

construed, nevertheless, the Court should not assume the role of advocate, and should dismiss claims

which are supported only by vague and conclusory allegations. Haines, 404 U.S. at 520; HilL 935
F.2d at 1110.
In the instant case, PlaintiJfhas completely failed to allege a deprivation of a right secured by

the Constitution ofthe United States or to identify any conduct whereby Defendant was acting under
color of state Jaw. Construing Plaintifi's complaint liberally in accord with his llDl..B status, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish the essential elements of a civil rights action pursuant
to section 1983: that defendant deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States while acting under color of state law. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, and accordingly, his complaint should be dismissed.

B.

Payment of rating fee

Although Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the PLRA requires
the district tourt to assess and collect the $150 filing fee even when a case is dismissed before service
of the summons and complaint

~ 28

U.S.C. § 191S(b)(l). As of the date ofPlaintifrs financial

certificate, Plaintifflacked funds to make even an initial partial fee payment. However, the trust fund
officer at PJaintiff's current place of incarceration is hereby ordered to conect, when fUnds exist,
!

monthly payments fi'om Plaintiff's prison account(s) in the amount of20% of the preceding month's
3

l.

income credited to the account. Monthly payments collected from Plaintiff's prison account(s) shall
be forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the account balance exceeds $10 until the full SlSO
filing fee is paid. Separate deductions and payments shall be made with respect to each action or

appeal filed by Plaintiff. AD payments shall be sent to the Cler~ 411 United States Courthouse, 333
West Fourth Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-3819, attn: PL Payments, and shall clearly identify
Plaintiff's name and the case number assigned to this action. The Clerk shall send a copy of this
Order to the trust fund officer at the Oldahoma State Reformatory, P.O. Box 514, Granite, OK
73547-0514.

This dismissal counts as one ofPlaintifrs three allotted dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Court also takes notice this dismissal constitutes the second time' PlaintifF has brought a civil
action in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 which was dismissed for failure to state a claim or as
fiivolous.

CONCLUSION
After liberally construing the Plaintiffs allegations, Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972), the Court concludes that PJaintilfhas failed to allege a deprivation of a right secured by the
Constitution ofthe United States or that the actions of defendant were under color of state law. Sa
Bakery McCollum, 443 U.S. 137 (1979); m

11m Wilhelmy

Grl)!, 766 P.2d 1357, 1358 (Okla.

1989). Therefore, Plaintift's complaint should be dismisSed. However. Plaintiff must nonetheless pay
the $150 filing fee infuU.

lplaintifrs other case filings in this Court include: Case No. 97-CV-937-K, dismissed without prejudice on
Janwuy 30. 1998. for failW"e to pay initial partial payment offiling fee as ordered; and Case No. 98-CV-149-BU,
dhnnissed pursuant to § 191S(e)(2)(B) for faiJUR to state a claim, April, 1998.

4

I.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
I.

Plaintift's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However,
Plaintiff shall make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income
credited to his aecount(s). Prison officials having custody of Plaintiff sball forward
payments from Plaintiff's account(s) to the Clerk at the above-cited address each time
the amount in the account(s) exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid.

2.

This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S. C. 191S(e)(2)(B).

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to unag" this dismissal as a "prior occasion" for
purposes of§ 191 S(g).

4.

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the trust fund officer at the Oklahoma
State Refonnatory, P.O. Box 514, Granite, OK 73547-0514.

SO ORDBRED

t3

day of April, 1998.

s