BROWN v. LYONS et al

Filing 33

ORDER THAT THE ORDER DATED 2/14/13 (DOC. NO. 17) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS MODIFIED TO GRANT IFP STATUS ONLY AS TO THOSE CLAIMS IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT ALLEGE A THREAT OF IMMINENT DANGER OR SER IOUS PHYSICAL INJURY AS DESCRIBED IN THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM. IFP STATUS IS DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER CLAIMS. ACCORDINGLY PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS THAT FAIL TO ALLEGE A THREAT OF IMMINENT DANGER ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PAY THE APPROPRIATE FEE. PLAINTIFF'S REMAINING CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1915(e)(2) AND 1915A. PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ORDERS REQUIRING SERVICE OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 20, 22) ARE DENIED AS MOOT. PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. NOS. 5, 21, 24) ARE DENIED AS MOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 10/16/13. 10/16/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALTON D. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
R. LYONS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-3458

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2013, for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
(1)

The Order entered February 14, 2013 (ECF No. 17)

granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) is MODIFIED to grant IFP status only as to those claims
in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20) that allege a
threat of imminent danger of serious physical injury, as
described in the accompanying memorandum.
as to all other claims.

IFP status is DENIED

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims that

fail to allege a threat of imminent danger are DISMISSED without
prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the appropriate
filing fee.
(2) Plaintiff’s remaining claims are DISMISSED with
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

(3) Plaintiff’s requests for orders requiring service
of the Second Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 20, 22) are DENIED as
moot.
(4)

Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining

order and preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 5, 21, 24) are DENIED
as moot.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
J.

2