Banks v. Roe et al
Filing
6
ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 8/16/2017. (JLS)
FILED
AUG 1 6 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FREDERICK BANKS,
'
aenic
4 I7-CV-04092-RAL
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO
vs.
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
ADRIAN ROE, ESQUIRE, MARK R
HORNAK, J, ROBERT CESSAR, AUSA, SOO
SONG, US ATTORNEY, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, S A SEAN
LANGFORD, S.A. ROBERT WERNER, S A
IN
CHARGE SCOTT SMITH, MIKE
POMPEO,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Defendants
Plaintiff, Fredenck Banks, is an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center m
Youngstown, Ohio(NEOCC) as a result of cnminal proceedings in the District of Pennsylvama
Doc 5 Plaintiff has filed a Petition for Wnt of Mandamus, two Motions for Leave to Proceed m
Forma Paupens, and an additional Complaint for a Wnt of Quo Warranto, Prohibition and
Mandamus Docs, 1, 2, 5 Plaintiff has filed similar complaints m many other distncts.
Plaintiffs complaint is subject to screening under the Pnson Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA) because Plaintiff is "a pnsoner seek[mg] redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity"28 U S C § 1915(a) Plaintiff moves to waive his filing
fee The Pnson Litigation Reform Act, 28 U S C.§ 1915(g) states.
In no event shall a pnsoner bnng a civil achon or appeal a judgment in a civil
action or proceeding under this section if the pnsoner has, on 3 or more pnor
occasions, while incarcerated or detained m any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
fhvolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
unless the pnsoner is under imminent danger of senous physical injury
Plaintiff, while incarcerated, has filed many more than 3 cases that were dismissed as
frivolous, malicious, or lacking ment See Banks v Cty. OfAllegheny, 568 F Supp 2d 579, 586
n 1 (W.D Pa. 2008) Plaintiff is, therefore, barred from filing a federal civil case unless he pays
the filing fee m full or alleges imminent danger of senous physical injury
Plaintiff does not allege he faces imminent danger of senous physical injury Liberally
construed, Plaintiffs complaint does not allege imminent danger of senous physical injury
Plaintiffs statement that the stabbing occurred at the NEOCC does not indicate that Plaintiff was
endangered at that time or indicate that Plaintiff is currently m imminent danger Furthermore,
the alleged failur^ to take proper precautions after the stabbing is too vague to demonstrate an
imminent threat of danger. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to waive his filing fee is DENIED It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay the full filing fee of $400 00 to the clerk of court
within 30 calendar days of the date of this order or the case will be dismissed without prejudice
DATED August 16, 2017
BY THE COURT
ROBERTO A LANGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?