STOCKTON v. HARRY et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 14 Motion to Vacate 7 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 3/5/25. (ndf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RONALD STOCKTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAUREL HARRY, Secretary of Corrections,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:24 CV 34
Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF No. 14

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP Status. ECF No.
14. For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.
Since February 24, 2024, Plaintiff Ronald Stockton (“Stockton”) has filed twenty-four civil
rights lawsuits in this Court. 1 In nearly all, he has filed motions for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. In forma pauperis is a statutory privilege enacted to ensure that indigent individuals,
including prisoners, may pursue meaningful litigation. Under the statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as
amended, a prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis is not excused from paying filing
fees, but is only excused from pre-paying them in full if he or she meets certain criteria. Prisoners
who qualify for in forma pauperis status pay an initial partial fee, followed by installment
payments until the entire fee is paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
This Court reviewed Stockton’s complaints and identified 304 named defendants, and
unpaid and likely uncollectible filing fees totaling $8400. See Stockton v. Harry, No. 1:24-33 (ECF

See Stockton v. Harry, No. 1:24-33 (ECF No. 23) (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2025) (listing 22 of the 24 lawsuits). Stockton
has since added two cases to his portfolio. See Stockton v. Shapiro, No. 2:24-1612 and Stockton v. Walker, No. 2:241619.
1

1

No. 23), see also fn. 1, supra listing two more recently filed cases. In Harry, Stockton asserted
claims against 15 defendants for, among others, “cruel and unusual punishment; deliberate
indifference; failure to protect; violation of the America Disabilities Act [sic]; conspiracy to
embezzele [sic] funds” arising out of the distribution of free but expired tubes of toothpaste with
the caps removed. Id.
The Court’s review culminated in an Order issued on January 8, 2025, prohibiting Stockton
from proceeding in forma pauperis in this Court absent a showing of imminent danger of serious
physical injury, as stated in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. The Court determined that this extreme
remedy was compelled by Stockton’s history of abuse of the litigation process and the in forma
pauperis privilege.
In reaching its decision, the Court also reviewed Stockton’s filings in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Id. Because of his abusive litigation
practices in 12 other actions filed there, United States District Judge Jennifer Wilson issued an
order prohibiting Stockton from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he can show that he is in
imminent danger, as stated in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Stockton v. Sup’t McGinley, No. 22-902
(M.D. Pa.) (ECF Nos. 89 and 118).
On August 13, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
Judge Wilson’s order denying him the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis absent a showing
of imminent danger of harm. Stockton v. McGinley, No. 23-2304, 2024 WL 3770305 (3d Cir.
Aug. 13, 2024). The Third Circuit agreed that Stockton had not yet accumulated three strikes which
would have otherwise barred him from receiving in forma pauperis status under the Prisoner

2

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 2 Instead, the district court’s order was occasioned by Stockton’s
abusive litigation history and was affirmed on that basis. Id.
In this case, the second of the 24 cases that Stockton filed here, he alleges that he faced
retaliation at a former facility because he filed lawsuits in 2016 against Department of Corrections
employees and administrators in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. ECF No. 8 at 3. He also
alleges he was warned not to discuss purported abuse at a youth facility where he was housed years
earlier. The alleged retaliation included a transfer to the State Correctional Institution at Forest
(“SCI-Forest”), a short delay to access some of his property after the move, and the destruction of
other property. Id. 3-5. For his alleged injuries, Stockton seeks several million dollars in
compensatory damages and injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring the termination of
employment of each of the individual Defendants. On August 28, 2024, the Court granted
Stockton’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis to permit this litigation to proceed
without prepayment of the required filing fees. ECF No. 7.
After service of the Complaint and based on Stockton’s history of frivolous and abusive
litigation, Defendants filed the pending Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status. ECF No. 14.
Defendants point to Stockton’s “excessive number of lawsuits against DOC and/or its staff that to
date have been largely unsuccessful.” ECF No. 15 at 5. Further, “[a]s to content and frequency, a

2

To curb abusive and frivolous prisoner litigation, Congress enacted the PLRA and instituted several reforms.
“Among other things, the PLRA amended the I.F.P. statute as it applies to prisoners. Under the
statute as amended, a prisoner who is allowed to proceed I.F.P. is not excused from paying filing
fees, but is only excused from pre-paying them in full if they meet certain criteria. The PLRA now
requires prisoners who qualify for I.F.P. status to pay by way of an initial partial fee, followed by
installment payments until the entire fee is paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Congress also added
§ 1915(g), the “three strikes rule,” which limits a prisoner's ability to proceed I.F.P. if the prisoner
abuses the judicial system by filing frivolous actions. Prisoners may avoid the limitation in this
provision, however, if they are under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.’”

Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001).

3

review of the dockets reveals [Stockton] has a pattern of filing for preliminary injunctions, motions
to reconsider, miscellaneous filings and exhibits that do not effectively advance his cases to
favorable outcomes but rather unnecessarily burden the defendants and courts.” Id.
Stockton opposes the instant Motion on three grounds. ECF No. 27. First, Stockton argues
that he has not yet incurred “three strikes” in his federal court litigation. Therefore, the Court
cannot impose a filing restriction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Second, Stockton argues that Judge
Wilson’s Order in the Middle District is based on legal and factual error and thus cannot be the
basis of any order in this Court. Third, he contends he adequately demonstrates imminent harm.
Id.
Upon review of Defendants’ Motion and Stockton’s response, and in accordance with the
Court’s Order in Harry, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion and vacate the ifp Order entered
on August 28, 2024.
As to Stockton’s first and second arguments, the Court agrees that Stockton has not yet
acquired three strikes under the PLRA. Even so, the Third Circuit affirmed Judge Wilson’s
imposition of a filing restriction on grounds other than the three strikes rule. Stockton v. McGinley,
2024 WL 3770305, at *2. Contrary to Stockton’s assertions, the three strikes rule is just one of the
tools at the Court’s disposal to control its docket and protect the Court and parties from abuse.
Another tool is the filing limitation imposed by Judge Wilson and affirmed by the Third Circuit
based on his abuse of the in forma pauperis privilege. That same tool was again deployed in Harry
and was entered after consideration of Stockton’s objections. As in McGinley, this Court’s order
in Harry is narrowly tailored to permit Stockton to show imminent danger as a prerequisite to
proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee. Should he fail to do so, his litigation may proceed
after payment of the filing fee in full. See Aruanno v. Davis, 679 F. App’x 213, 215–16 (3d Cir.

4

2017) (district court did not abuse its discretion to preclude in forma pauperis privilege absent a
showing of imminent harm based on the plaintiff’s history of abusive filings, including “over 39
civil actions” and “45 appeals”). Similarly, here, Stockton will not be precluded from litigating his
claims. Instead, he will need to show imminent danger of harm as a prerequisite to the privilege of
proceeding in forma pauperis.
Stockton’s final argument is based on an assertion of imminent harm arising from alleged
retaliation including the issuance of a “false” and later dismissed misconduct that predates the
Complaint by one to two years, and the limited use of “oc spray” that he claims violated DOC
policy because the shift commander was not contacted. ECF No. 28 (passim). The Court will not
consider Stockton’s imminent harm claims at this time. Rather, if Stockton wishes to proceed with
this litigation without prepayment of the required filing fee, the Court will await the filing of an
appropriately supported Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, at which time
the issue of imminent harm will be before the Court for resolution.
Accordingly, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP Status,
ECF No. 14, and Stockton’s responses, ECF Nos. 27 and 28, and for the foregoing reasons, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP Status is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this
litigation, he will pay the $405.00 filing fee in full or file an amended motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis with an affidavit establishing imminent danger in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g) by April 5, 2025. The failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action for failure
to prosecute.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.C.2 of
the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed 14 days from the date of this Order to file an

5

appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any appeal is to
be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely appeal will waive any appellate rights.
Dated: March 5, 2025

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Maureen P. Kelly

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc:

The Honorable Susan Paradise Baxter
United States District Judge
All counsel of record via ECF
RONALD STOCKTON
HJ-1537
SCI FAYETTE
50 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450

6