THOMPSON v. BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE (PENNSYLVANIA) et al

Filing 11

ORDER OF COURT DENYING 10 Motion for Reconsideration/Motion for Joinder. See Order for further details. Mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff this same day. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 10/16/2015. (lcb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LYNNE THOMPSON,

)
)
)
vs.
)
)
BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE )
(PENNSYLVANIA); SCI-CAMBRIDGE )
SPRINGS; SUPERINTENDENT OF
)
SCI-CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS; MR.
)
JERMEY STEWART Supervisor; MS.
)
HEATHER HILDENBRAND; MR.
)
DOUGLAS; RANDAL B. TODD; MR.
)
SNOW; BOARD OF PROBATION AND )
PAROLE,
)
Defendants. )
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 15-619
Judge Arthur J.Schwab/
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

Re: ECF No. 10

ORDER
Lynne Thompson (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 10, of
our order denying her IFP Motion and directing her to pay the full filing fee by October 15,
2015. The only assertion in the Motion for Reconsideration which Plaintiff makes that she was
under imminent danger of serious physical injury was a claim that she was denied life sustaining
drugs and given a pill that she was allergic to. ECF No. 10 at 3 – 4. She claims that the
“Defendants were made aware of what was happening with the Medical Department of the
Allegheny County Jail” (“the ACJ”). Id. at 4. Her allegation of such occurrences obviously
concern actions or inactions taken while she was housed at the ACJ. We note that at the time of
the initiation of this suit, i.e., May 12, 2015, Plaintiff was already placed in SCI-Cambridge
Springs. ECF No. 1-1 (envelope in which her Complaint was sent with a return address of SCICambridge Springs). Accordingly, at the time she initiated this suit, even if we assume that the
allegations concerning her being denied medication at the ACJ satisfied the alleged “imminent

danger” requirement, such danger was already past given that she was housed at SCI-Cambridge
Springs and, as such, does not qualify her for the exception to the Three Strikes rule. AbdulAkbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 37, 313 (3d Cir. 2001) (“Someone whose danger has passed cannot
reasonably be described as someone who ‘is’ in danger, nor can that past danger reasonably be
described as ‘imminent.’).
We note that Plaintiff asks “[w]ith this ‘three strike rule’ is there going to be ‘penalized’
forever of the granting of In Forma Pauperis.” ECF No. 4 at 6. The answer is yes so long as she
is a prisoner at the time she files and seeks IFP status and is not in imminent risk of serious
physical injury.
The Request for Joinder with Civil Action No. 15-1085 is DENIED.
Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
/s/Arthur J. Schwab
ARTHUR J. SCHWAB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: October 16, 2015
cc:

The Honorable Maureen P. Kelly
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
LYNNE THOMPSON
OT 0636
SCI Cambridge Springs
451 Fullerton Avenue
Cambridge Springs, PA 16403-1238