MENDEZ et al v. AND AND ALL THE PERSONELL [MEMBERS AND WORKERS] OF THE US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT et al
MEMORANDUM, FILED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 1/8/14. 1/9/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(fb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MR. IV AN MENDEZ, et al.
AND AND ALL OF THE PERSONELL
MEMBERS AND WORKERS OF THE
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT, et al.
Ivan L. Mendez, a prisoner incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in
Smyrna, Delaware, filed this civil action against numerous defendants. Currently before the
Court is plaintiffs motion to proceed informa pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court
will deny the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
According to § 19 l 5(g), a prisoner who on three or more prior occasions while
incarcerated has filed an action or appeal in federal court that was dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, must be denied in
forma pauperis status unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time
that the complaint was filed. Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 310-11 (3d Cir. 2001) (en
bane). "[A] strike under§ 1915(g) will accrue only ifthe entire action or appeal is (1) dismissed
explicitly because it is 'frivolous,' 'malicious,' or 'fails to state a claim' or (2) dismissed
pursuant to a statutory provision or rule that is limited solely to dismissals for such reasons,
including (but not necessarily limited to) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(l), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), or Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Byrdv. Shannon,
715 F.3d 117, 126 (3d Cir. 2013). Plaintiff had accumulated at least three "strikes" for purposes
of28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) at the time he filed this action. See, e.g., Mendez v. Smythe, D. Del. Civ.
A. No. 08-364 (dismissing case as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); Mendez v. Del.
Legal Sys., D. Del. Civ. A. No. 05-304 (dismissing case for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l)); Mendez v. US. Justice Sys., D. Del. Civ. A. No. 04-898 (dismissing case
as frivolous). Accordingly, he may not proceed informa pauperis unless he was in imminent
danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint.
In assessing whether a complaint satisfies the imminent danger exception, the Court need
not credit "fantastic or delusional" allegations that "rise to the level of irrational or wholly
incredible." Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962, 967 (3d Cir. 1998) (quotations omitted).
Furthermore, "vague, generalized, and unsupported claims" are insufficient to establish that a
plaintiff is in imminent danger. Brown v. City of Phila., 331 F. App'x 898, 900 (3d Cir. 2009)
(per curiam). Plaintiffs allegations appear irrational and delusional, and the complaint does not
plausibly reflect that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed
this action. Accordingly, the Court will deny his motion to proceed informa pauperis. 1 An
appropriate order follows.
Furthermore, a pro se litigant who is not an attorney may not represent someone else in federal
court. See Osei-Afriyie ex rel. Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir.
1991); CE. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).
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?