Konrath v. Snell
ORDER Dismissing Case. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 1/24/2017. (mb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case No. CIV-17-62-D
Plaintiff Gregory Konrath, a pro se prisoner incarcerated in Indiana, filed a new
case in this district on January 17, 2017. This is his fourth case filing in this Court since
December 2, 2016. In prior cases, Plaintiff has asked to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In this case, he has neither paid the filing fee nor requested IFP
status. Even were Plaintiff to file an application in this case, however, it would be denied
because he is barred from proceeding IFP by operation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Research reveals that Plaintiff is an abusive litigant subject to filing restrictions in
federal courts in Indiana. See, e.g., Konrath v. United Health Care, LLC, No. 3:17 CV
009, Opinion & Order (N.D. Ind. Jan. 5, 2017) (detailing Plaintiff’s litigation history).
According to a search conducted by this Court on the Pacer Case Locator service on
January 24, 2017, Plaintiff has filed 142 civil cases in 11 federal district courts since July
2016. For current purposes, it is sufficient to note that “Konrath has accumulated at least
18 strikes.” See id. p.1. This case concerns an alleged civil rights conspiracy resulting in
Plaintiff’s incarceration. Plaintiff does not allege that he is “under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Therefore, because Plaintiff has
not paid the filing fee and because he cannot bring this action without prepayment of the
required fees, the Court finds that this action must be dismissed without prejudice to
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED without
prejudice. A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2017.
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?