O'Neal v. Special Agent-in-Charge
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Order dismissing case. Signed by District Judge Pamela L. Reeves on 1/3/18. (c/m to Ralph T O'Neal, III#18792-075 TERRE HAUTEFEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONInmate Mail/ParcelsP.O. BOX 33TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808 ) (ADA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
RALPH T. O’NEAL, III,
Petitioner,
v.
SPECIAL AGENT-IN-CHARGE,
Knoxville Office of the F.B.I.,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:17-cv-00249
REEVES/GUYTON
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner Ralph T. O’Neal, III is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the United
States Penitentiary, Terre Haute. Before the Court is Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. 1] and petition for a writ of mandamus [Doc. 2]. For the reasons set forth below,
Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1] will be DENIED, no process
shall issue, and this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a fee-paid
petition for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to the three-strike rule set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Section 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”) provides as
follows:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action [in forma pauperis] . . . if the prisoner
has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
While incarcerated, Petitioner has filed at least three prior civil rights actions that were
dismissed for a failure to state a claim. See Ralph O’Neal v. Blount County Detention Center, et
al., Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-456 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 20, 2008) (dismissed for failure to state a
claim); Ralph O’Neal v. Kris Mynatt, Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-491 (E.D. Tenn. December 19,
2008) (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); Ralph T O’Neal, III v. Jack Stockton,
et al., Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-467 (E.D. Tenn. December 19, 2008) (dismissed as frivolous and
for failure to state a claim).
Although Petitioner has filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, he is still
ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis, unless his petition demonstrates that he faces imminent
danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S.Ct. 627,
630 n.3 (2016) (“We assume without deciding that a mandamus petition qualifies as a ‘civil action’
or ‘appeal’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).”); Gross v. Experian, No. 10–cv–150–GFVT,
2015 WL 1038835, at *3–*4 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 10, 2015) (noting that mandamus actions are civil
proceedings to which the PLRA filing fee requirements apply); McGore v. Mich. Parole Bd., No.
1:09–CV–922, 2009 WL 3429102, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 23, 2009) (denying pauper status to
prisoner who had filed a petition for writ of mandamus because had previously acquired three
strikes under § 1915(g)).
Nothing in Petitioner’s petition suggests that he was in imminent danger at the time of
filing. Therefore, Petitioner must prepay the entire $400.00 filing fee to proceed in this action.
Accordingly, Petitioner motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1] will be DENIED,
and Petitioner’s petition will be DIMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a fee-paid
petition for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to the three-strike rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith
and would be totally frivolous.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
___________________________________
______________________________________
_
_
_
_
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A S S
C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
3
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?