PISKANIN v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 3/27/14. 3/27/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER. (jpd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTE}Uq DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL JOHN PISKANIN, JR.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Michael John Piskanin, Jr., a prisoner, is attempting
to file this action, styled as a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus,
against the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
He seeks to compel the defendant to file criminal
charges against two Federal Judges, to provide copies of agency
records, and to show cause why the defendant does not have a duty
to support his attempt to remove his State criminal charges to a
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who on
three or more prior occasions while incarcerated has filed an
action in a 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
(3d Cir. 2001).
Although, the Third Circui't has not a dd ressed the issue
in a precedential opinion, a non-precedenti'al
opinion and order
suggest that the Court views m d
an amus petitions brought under 28
1361 as civil actions subject to the PLRA.
Banks, 450 F. App'x 155, 157 n.l (3d ci·r. 2011)
See In re
(per curiam) .
Therefore, this mandamus action is subject to the PLRA, including
§ 1915 (g).
Mr. Piskanin had accumulated at least three "strikes"
for purposes of§ 1915(g) at the time he filed this action.
Piskanin v. Hammer, 269 F. App'x 159 (3d Cir. 2008)
(dismissing appeal as frivolous pursuant to § 1915 (e) (2) (B) (i));
Piskanin v. Doe, Civ. A. No. 09-2553, 2009 WL 1684651 (E.D. Pa.
June 15, 2009)
(dismissing action as "legally frivolous");
Piskanin v. Banach, Civ. A. No. 07-4655, 2008 WL 5246165 (E.D.
Pa. Dec. 16, 2008)
(dismissing amended complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to§ 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii)).
may not proceed in forma pauperis unless he was in imminent
danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed this
Because nothing in Piskanin's mandamus petition suggests
that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the
time he filed this action, his motion to proceed in f orma
pauperis is denied.
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?