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)

Download PDF
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

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?