Brown v. Correct Care Solution et al
Filing
69
ORDER TERMINATING CASE: 1. Defendants motion to revoke Plaintiffs in forma pauperisstatus (Doc. 42) is GRANTED.2. The portion of this Courts October 21, 2016 Order,granting Plaintiffs application for leave to proceed informa pauperis is VACATED.3. Pl aintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) inthe above-captioned action is DENIED in accordance with28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and the action is dismissed for failureto pay the full filing fee without prejudice to Plaintiff toreopen the act ion by submitting the full filing fee withinsixty (60) days.4. All outstanding motions are to be DISMISSED; 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the abovecaptionedcase.6. Any appeal from this order is DEEMED frivolous and notin good faith. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3).WITHOUT PREJUDICE.Signed by Honorable William J. Nealon on 2/13/17. (ep)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEITH S. BROWN,
Plaintiff
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTION, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-16-2053
(Judge Nealon)
ORDER
AND NOW, THIS 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017, upon consideration of
Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status in the above
captioned Bivens1 complaint, in which Plaintiff alleges that the named Defendants
have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment (Doc. 1, complaint), and it appearing that, although he seeks to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, the “three strikes” provision
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. §1915,
prohibits him from proceeding in forma pauperis because he has had at least three
prior civil actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens stands for the proposition that “a citizen suffering a
compensable injury to a constitutionally protected interest could invoke the general
federal-question jurisdiction of the district courses to obtain an award of monetary
damages against the responsible federal official.” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478,
504 (1978).
a claim for which relief may be granted2, and there is no indication that Plaintiff “is
under imminent serious physical injury,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (setting forth the three
strikes rule which provides that an inmate who has three prior actions or appeals
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a viable claim may not
proceed in forma pauperis “unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury”); see also Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir.
2001) (en banc), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
status (Doc. 42) is GRANTED.
2.
The portion of this Court’s October 21, 2016 Order,
granting Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is VACATED.
3.
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) in
the above-captioned action is DENIED in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and the action is dismissed for failure
to pay the full filing fee without prejudice to Plaintiff to
reopen the action by submitting the full filing fee within
sixty (60) days.
4.
All outstanding motions are to be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2
The Court takes judicial notice of the following actions filed by Plaintiff that
were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: Brown
v. Beard, et al., Civil No. 4:10-cv-1129 (M.D. Pa. March 3, 2011), aff’d, Brown v.
Beard et al., No. 11-2440, slip op. at 2, 5 (3rd Cir. Sept. 20, 2011); Brown v. Hannah
et al., Civil No. 4:11-cv-0260 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2012).
2
5.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the abovecaptioned case.
6.
Any appeal from this order is DEEMED frivolous and not
in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3).
/s/ William J. Nealon
United States District Judge
3
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?