TABANSI v. WOLFF et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM ORDER - Since there is pending a recommendation to dismiss this lawsuit entirely, Pews requests are premature. Therefore, these motions (Docs. 26 and 27 .), are DENIED, without prejudice to renewal of these motions following the district courts resolution of the pending Report and Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 11, 2015. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SEHU KESSA-SAA TABANI, a/k/a
ALFONSO PERCY PEW,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff
v.
TOM WOLFF, et al.,
Defendants

Civil No. 3:15-CV-676
(Judge Kosik)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Alfonso Percy Pew, also known as Sehu Kessa-Saa Tabani, is a prodigious and
prodigiously unsuccessful pro se litigant. Indeed, a website of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections which contains an “Inmate Strike Index” reveals that the
plaintiff previously has initiated at least three civil actions in federal courts which
were dismissed either as frivolous or for failing to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. See Pew v. Cox, Civil No. 93-4128 (E.D. Pa. August 20, 1993)(dismissed
as frivolous); Pew v. Kosik, Civil No. 95-143 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 1995)(dismissed for
failure to state a claim); Pew v. Moyer, Civil No. 96-714 (M.D. Pa. June 7,
1996)(dismissed for failure to state a claim).
1

Despite history of litigative failure, Pew has filed yet another pro se complaint,
suing the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Secretary of the Department of
Corrections because of concerns Pew has regarding his meal service at the State
Correctional Institution Camp Hill. Thus, Pew has sued state officials who have had
no direct involvement in the matters about which he complains, his personal food
service, in a complaint which does not allege well pleaded facts which would support
a claim against either of these supervisory officials. (Doc. 5.)
We have recommended dismissal of this complaint, a recommendation that
remains pending before the district court. (Doc. 25.) Undeterred, Pew has filed
motions urging the Court to commence litigating issues in this case. (Docs. 26 and
27.) Since there is pending a recommendation to dismiss this lawsuit entirely, Pew’s
requests are premature. Therefore, these motions (Docs. 26 and 27.), are DENIED,
without prejudice to renewal of these motions following the district court’s resolution
of the pending Report and Recommendation.
So ordered this 11th day of September 2015.

S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

2