Glenn v. N.W. Natural Gas
Filing
5
Order: This action is DISMISSED. Signed on 01/24/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (copy of order mailed to plaintiff) (jw)
I
I
I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
MELREE LAREA GLENN,
Case No. 3:
Plaintiff,
18-cv-00012-~A
ORD R
V.
N.W. NATURAL GAS,
Defendant.
AIKEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at Two Rivers Correctional Institution, files his
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applies to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Howeve , at
the time plaintiff filed the instant complaint, plaintiff had filed more than three actions in his
District that were dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous. Accordingly, plai tiff
is not entitled to proceed IFP, and he must submit the full $400.00 fee to proceed with his
action. Alternatively, plaintiff must explain why he is not barred from proceeding IFP despite the
cases that were dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous.
1-
ORDER
I
A prisoner may not proceed IFP - without paying the requisite filing fee - if "the prison r
has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought n
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 t e
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Generally a
case dismissed for the reasons set forth in § 1915(g) is considered a "strike" against the prison r,
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 er
14, 2017 for failure to state a claim);
2. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3: l 7-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 on
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 on
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 on
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 17,
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 17,
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 17,
2017 for failure to state a claim);
1
2-
The remaining case was dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction and comity.
ORDER
1
9. Glenn v. State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01377-AA (dismissed on October 1 ,
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 n
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 7,
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 7,
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: l 7-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 Decembe 7,
2017 for failure to state a claim).
Accordingly, plaintiff has accumulated more than three strikes, and he may not proc ed
IFP unless he was under "imminent danger of serious physical injury" at the time he brought he
current action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053. Here, plaintiff does not all ge
imminent danger or injury; rather, plaintiff alleges that he frequented a location or faci ity
advertised in a publication ("Street Roots") "sponsored" by defendant, resulting in drug cha ges
against him. Plaintiff apparently obtained syringes at the location, and they were confiscated nd
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
action or explain why the above-named actions should not count as "strikes" precluding IFP
status. See In re Pauline, 2015 WL 1349649, at *2 (D. Haw. Mar. 24, 2015) ("The district c urt
3-
ORDER
may dismiss sua sponte an action that is barred by § 1915(g) after notifying the prisoner oft e
strikes it considers to support such a dismissal, and affording the prisoner an opportunity to e
heard before dismissal."). However, as plaintiff has been advised previously, a private party su h
as N.W. Natural Gas generally cannot be sued under§ 1983. Even if plaintiff pays the filing fl e,
he fails to state a claim and amendment would be futile. Accordingly, this action is dismissed.
CONCLUSION
This action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED
this~fday of January, 2018.
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge
4-
ORDER
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?