Schuett v. Wilson et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 06/13/2017. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLIFFORD J. SCHUETT, Plaintiff, V. MR. Civil Action No. WILSON, 3:17CV102 et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Clifford J. action and Schuett, applied labeled his action, Court that § 1915(g). he to a federal inmate, proceed m submitted this civil forma pauperis. "IMMINENT DANGER COMPLAINT," likely has three strikes Schuett flagging to the under 28 U.S.C. That statute provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action if the prisoner has, on 3 or more [in forma pauperis] prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United that i t is States that was dismissed on the grounds frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical inj ury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). on March 9, 2017, the prior action or appeal failure Court to noted state that a Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered Court directed Schuett to that was dismissed as claim." Schuett's (ECF No. 2, "submissions at ''identify each frivolous 2.) Moreover, indicate suffered from these many health conditions for a or for that he the has lengthy period of time and physical that injury,' conditions." identify present he 28 each not 'under imminent danger of U.S.C. § 1915(g), from The Court also directed (Id.) prior challenging medical is action his conditions. that medical Schuett each action was filed. he filed care must provide Additionally, the his Response to the March chronic Schuett 2010 the "to to the above-listed court in which Schuett must also provide a brief summary of the ruling in each action." In these from for serious 9, (Id. at 2-3.) 2017 Memorandum Order, Schuett wholly failed to comply with the Court's directives. his m forma pauperis affidavit, Schuett indicated that he had one case that was dismissed as frivolous claim. (ECF 3, However, search, No. at 2.) or failure from the to state a most cursory the Court discerns that Schuett has many cases that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a he failed to identify. No. On 14-00374, See Schuett v. 2014 WL 5781409, at *1-2 Governor, (D. claim that State of Haw., Haw. Nov. 6, 2014) (listing cases that are strikes under § 1915(g)). Schuett also failed to identify any cases in which he has challenged his medical care for the conditions he outlines in his complaint. accompanied by rants Instead, his ^ forma pauperis affidavit "PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO THE COURT'S ORDER," about his medical conditions and then "apologizes to was that the Court about his outbursts." (ECF No. 4, at 4 (capitalization and punctuation corrected).) In the interim, failing to receive the result he desired in the instant action, Schuett filed a new action and attempted to litigate the new action instead of complying with the directives of the Court. Even though directives, do so. 2017, See Schuett v. Wilson, 3:17CV174 (E.D. Va.).^ Schuett failed to comply the Court provided Schuett a Accordingly, in forma pauperis status, it the Court's second opportunity to by Memorandum Order entered on April 24, the Court instructed Schuett that, directives. with in order to be granted Schuett must comply with the Court's Accordingly, the Court stated is ORDERED that Schuett is directed to submit one document that contains the following information: 1. In the first section, Schuett must identify each prior action or appeal that was dismissed frivolous or for failure to state a claim.^ 2. As previously outlined, around the bar of 28 as in an effort to get U.S.C. § 1915(g), Schuett suggests that he is a parapalegic in a wheelchair, has ^ In that action, by Memorandum Order entered on April 28, 2017, the Court warned Schuett: "[T]he Court will take no action in the instant case until Schuett complies with the directives of the Court comply with the Order 3:17CV102. of 3:17CV174 (E.D. Va.), ECF No. ^ McLean v. United States, 2009) action and 5) dismissal Cir. that in (ECF No. ("[N]othing this Moreover, failure one." Schuett v. Wilson, 18. 566 F.3d 391, in our analysis of 399 (4th dismissals for failure to state a claim suggests that dismissals for frivolousness should be exempted from § 1915(g)'s strike designation, even when rendered without prejudice."). to in 3:17CV102 will result in the dismissal is a prior shoulder injury from 2 015 which causes him trouble propelling his wheelchair, but Defendants are forcing him to push his own chair, has cataracts causing him to be blind in one eye, and has had a urinary tract infection and has had to selfcatheterize Petersburg admits that transfer, in since in before January he has he was 2017. received transferred {Compl. medical 2-3.) care to FCI Schuett since his but nevertheless believes he has been placed "imminent danger" by the actions of Defendants. (Id.) Schuett's submissions indicate that he has suffered from these many health conditions for a lengthy period of time and that he is not "under imminent danger of serious physical injury," 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), from these chronic conditions. In the second section of the document Schuett submits, he is also directed to identify each prior action that he filed from 2010 to the present challenging his medical care for the above-listed medical conditions. Schuett must provide the court in which each action was filed. Additionally, Schuett must also provide a brief summary of the ruling in each action. 3. At the end of the document, Schuett must certify under penalty of perjury that the information contained U.S.C. time § in the 1932 credit on document is correct. See also 28 (permitting revocation of earned good the own motion for claims that Court's are malicious, are filed for the purpose of harassing the defendants, or if the "claimant testifies falsely otherwise knowingly presents false evidence or information to the court"). 4. Failure to comply with the above directives within the fifteen (15) day time limit will result in dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 5, at 3-4.) Schuett has responded. attempt to law suits, medical Schuett made absolutely no comply with the directives Schuett states: past However, records "Sir, I the Court. At most, can not respond to your order of my memory is not and will of see I that good. . . . You may check my do have memory problems. I do not have the money to hire a researcher or paralegal to get all the information you are demanding in your court order." 1, ECF No. 6.) (Resp. Instead of making an honest attempt to list any case he might have remembered filing,^ Schuett simply lists his medical conditions and injuries. Under i.e., 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), has the discretion to allow, without prepayment of fees." 612 the (4th Cir. 2013) Court "'may authorize,' the commencement of a Blakely v. (citing § 1915(a)). Wards, Thus, suit 738 F.3d 607, it follows that the Court's ''authority to deny IFP status to a prisoner who has abused the privilege is clear." Id. The Court is under no obligation to award IFP status and may deny IFP status if doing so promotes "the interests of U.S. (1989); J., 183-84 concurring). forma pauperis see Blakely, justice." In re McDonald, 738 F.3d at 619-20 489 (Wilkinson, The Court cannot allow Schuett to proceed in in the face of such willful failure to comply ^ In its previous Memorandum Order, the Court even provided Schuett with a three strikes. citation to a case where he was found See Schuett v. Governor, State of Haw., to have No. 14- 00374, 2014 WL 5781409, at *1-2 (D. Haw. Nov. 6, 2014) (listing cases that are strikes under § 1915(g)). Even with this prompting, Schuett made no effort to attempt to list any prior cases he may have filed. The Court believes that Schuett has accumulated three qualifying strikes. Section 1915(g) "creates a mandatory-denial baseline for IFP applications: if a prisoner has three strikes, he is categorically precluded from proceeding IFP (absent showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury)." Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 619 (4th Cir. 2013) (Wilkinson, J. , concurring). For this reason alone, the Court can deny Schuett's application for ^ forma pauperis. with the Court's directives and in light of his litigious past. The Court twice instructed Schuett to provide information to the Court to assist the Court permitted Schuett to proceed failed to in ascertaining whether he should be without assist the prepayment Court in of the that filing inquiry. fee. While " [p]ro se litigants are entitled to some deference from courts . . . they as well as other litigants are subject to the respect for court orders administration would be F.2d Cir. 93, 96 Accordingly, prejudice. {4th this without impossible." 1989) Court will which effective Ballard v. (internal dismiss action If Schuett desires to reassert his claims, . . judicial Carlson, citation the . 882 omitted. without he may file a new action accompanied by the full $400.00 filing fee. In the alternative, Schuett may file a new action with a separate document that complies with the directives in April 24, 2017 Memorandum Order as quoted above. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Schuett. It is so ORDERED. Robert E. Payne Senior IMited States District Judge Date: Richmond, Virginia

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?