Glenn v. V.O.Z.

Filing 5

Order: This action is DISMISSED. Signed on 01/24/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (copy of order mailed to plaintiff) (jw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

MELREE LAREA GLENN,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00008- A

Plaintiff,

v.
V.O.Z.,
Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at Two Rivers Correctional Institution, files

IS

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applies to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). However at
the time plaintiff filed the instant complaint, plaintiff had filed more than three actions in

Is

District that were dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous. Accordingly, plain iff
is not entitled to proceed IFP, and he must submit the full $400.00 fee to proceed with t is

i

action. Alternatively, plaintiff must explain why he is not barred from proceeding IFP despite he
cases that were dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous.

1
'1

t
I

i

'j
;_i

j

l

1-

ORDER

A prisoner may not proceed IFP - without paying the requisite filing fee - if "the pris ner
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 i is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical irtjury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Generall
case dismissed for the reasons set forth in § 19 l 5(g) is considered a "strike" against the priso
with three "strikes" prohibiting IFP status. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F .3d 104 7, 1049 (9th

ir.

2007) (referring to § 1915(g) as the "three-strikes rule").
Prior to filing the instant complaint, plaintiff had filed eighteen cases while incarcerat d,
and seventeen cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous: 1
1. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01317-AA (dismissed on Novem

14, 2017 for failure to state a claim);
2. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3: 17-cv-01325-AA (dismissed on October 7,
2017 for failure to state a claim);
3. Glenn v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01346-AA (dismissed n
October 17, 2017 for failure to state a claim);
4. Glenn v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01347-AA (dismissed n
October 17, 2017 for failure to state a claim and as frivolous);
5. Glenn v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01348-AA (dismissed n
October 17, 2017 for failure to state a claim and as frivolous);
6. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01374-AA (dismissed on October 1 ,
2017 for failure to state a claim);
7. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01375-AA (dismissed on October 1 ,
2017 for failure to state a claim and as frivolous);
8. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01376-AA (dismissed on October 1 ,
2017 for failure to state a claim);
1

2-

The remaining case was dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction and comity.

ORDER

9. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3: 17-cv-01377-AA (dismissed on October 17,
2017 for failure to state a claim);
10. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01378-AA (dismissed on October 17,
2017 for failure to state a claim);
11. Glenn v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01379-AA (dismissed on
October 17, 2017 for failure to state a claim);
12. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3: 17-cv-01380-AA (dismissed on October 17,
2017 for failure to state a claim);
13. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01576-AA (dismissed on October 17,
2017 for failure to state a claim);
14. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01616-AA (dismissed on October 7,
2017 for failure to state a claim);
15. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01633-AA (dismissed on October 4,
2017 for failure to state a claim and as frivolous);
16. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01634-AA (dismissed on October 4,
2017 for failure to state a claim and as frivolous);
17. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 6: 17-cv-01922-AA (dismissed on December 7,
2017 for failure to state a claim).
Accordingly, plaintiff has accumulated more than three strikes, and he may not proce d
IFP unless he was under "imminent danger of serious physical injury" at the time he brought t e
current action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053. Here, plaintiff does not alle e
imminent danger or injury; rather, plaintiff alleges that he frequented a location or facil'ty
advertised in a publication ("Street Roots") "sponsored" by defendant, resulting in drug charg s
against him. Plaintiff apparently obtained syringes at the location, and they were confiscated a d
used as evidence when he was arrested for possession of methamphetamine.
Normally, the court would allow plaintiff to submit the filing fee to proceed with t
action or explain why the above-named actions should not count as "strikes" precluding I P
status. See In re Pauline, 2015 WL 1349649, at *2 (D. Haw. Mar. 24, 2015) ("The district co
3-

ORDER

may dismiss sua sponte an action that is barred by § 1915(g) after notifying the prisoner of the
strikes it considers to support such a dismissal, and affording the prisoner an opportunity t be
heard before dismissal."). However, as plaintiff has been advised previously, a private party s ch
as V.O.Z. generally cannot be sued under § 1983. Even if plaintiff pays the filing fee, he fail to
state a claim and amendment would be futile. Accordingly, this action is dismissed.
CONCLUSION

This action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED thi~day of January, 2018.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

~

I

I

l

I
l

~

~
l

l

~

I

I
I
4-

ORDER

I

I
j