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)

Download PDF
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?