Riches v. Holy Land Foundation For Relief and Development et al

Filing 5

Riches v. Holy Land Foundation For Relief and Development et al

Doc. 5

Case 3:07-cv-01626

Document 5

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

JONATHAN LEE RICHES, #40948-018, Plaintiff,

) ) ) ) v. ) ) HOLY LAND FOUNDATION, ET AL., ) Defendants. )

No. 3:07-CV-1626-P ECF

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Plaintiff is an inmate confined in the Federal Correctional Institution in Salters, South Carolina. He brings this unspecified civil suit against Defendants Holy Land Foundation, the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Make-a-Wish Foundation, the United Way of America, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Goodwill Industries, the YMCA, the American Heart Association, UNICEF, Habitat for Humanity, the Jerry Lewis Telethon and the United Negro College Fund. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court finds Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Page 1 of the United States Magistrate Judge

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:07-cv-01626

Document 5

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 2 of 3

denied. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States 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 serious physical injury. Plaintiff has filed at least fifty-three previous actions in federal court. At least three of these actions have been dismissed as frivolous. See Riches v. Vick, et al., 1:07-CV-1858-WBH (N.D. Ga.), Riches v. Bush, 4:06-CV-442-MBS (D.C. S.C.); Riches v. Bureau of Prisons, 6:06CV-194-MBS-WMC (D.C. S.C.). Further, Plaintiff's complaint does not state that he is imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED. RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court further recommends that the District Court dismiss this action pursuant to § 1915(g), unless Plaintiff tenders the $350.00 filing fee to the District Clerk within ten (10) days of the filing of this recommendation. Signed this 3rd day of October, 2007.

_____________________________________ PAUL D. STICKNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Page 2 of the United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01626

Document 5

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 3 of 3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on Plaintiff. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Page 3 of the United States Magistrate Judge