STOCKTON v. LOWE et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 17 Motion to Vacate 10 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 3/5/2025. (ndf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RONALD STOCKTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT LOWE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:24 CV 38
Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF No. 17

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP Status. ECF No.
17. 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
No. 23), see also fn. 1, supra listing two more recently filed cases. In Harry, Stockton asserted

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

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). ECF No. 23. 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. As a result 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
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.
2

To curb abusive and frivolous prisoner litigation, Congress enacted the PLRA and instituted several reforms.

2

In this case, the fifth of the 24 cases that Stockton filed here, he alleges that he was issued
false misconducts for threatening prison staff and possession of contraband, had his cell
intentionally flooded (along with five others), was provided a tainted meal, had his mail withheld,
faced cell searches and had his long johns confiscated. ECF No. 11. These acts are alleged to be
in retaliation for submitting grievances and filing litigation against Department of Corrections
employees. Id. For his alleged injuries, Stockton seeks 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. 10.
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. 17.
Defendants point to Stockton’s “excessive number of lawsuits against DOC and/or its staff that to
date have been largely unsuccessful.” ECF No. 18 at 5. Further, “[a]s to content and frequency, a
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.

“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

Stockton opposes the instant Motion on three grounds. ECF No. 29. 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. However, the Third Circuit affirmed Judge Wilson’s
imposition of a filing restriction on grounds other than the PLRA’s 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. 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

4

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 an allegedly unauthorized cell search, placement on the ground during the
search to facilitate cuffing behind his back, the limited use of “oc spray” that he claims violated
DOC policy because the shift commander was not contacted, and cell restrictions related to
bedding and clothing for seven days. ECF No. 29 at 3. 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. 17, and Stockton’s response, ECF No. 29, 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
appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any appeal

5

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