Schuett v. Wilson et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 12/07/2017. Copy of Memorandum Opinion mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
DEC - 8 20!7
CLIFFORD J. SCHUETT,
CLERK, U.S. DiSTt\1CT COURT
Plaintiff,
RICHMOND, VA
Civil Action No. 3:17CV672
v.
MR. ERIC WILSON, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Clifford J. Schuett, a federal inmate, submitted this civil
action and applied to proceed in forma pauperis.
The pertinent
statute provides:
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 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.
28
u.s.c.
§
1915 (g).
Schuett has
at
least
three actions or
appeals that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to
state a
claim.
No. 14-00374,
See Schuett v.
2014 WL 5781409,
Governor,
at *1-2
(D.
State of Haw.,
Haw.
Nov.
6,
Civ.
2014)
(denying in forma pauperis status and listing five cases that
are strikes under§ 1915(g)) ; 1 see also Schuett v. Unknown Party,
1
The United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii cited the following five cases that count as strikes:
{D. Ariz. Oct. 22, 2014) . 2
No. CV-14-01663-JJT (JZB)
The Clerk
will be directed to attach Orders from several of those cases to
this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Schuett's current complaint
does not demonstrate that he is in imminent danger of serious
physical harm.
Accordingly,
2017,
the Court
by
Memorandum
denied Schuett' s
Order
entered
request
to
on
October
30,
proceed in forma
pauperis is denied and directed him to submit the full $400.00
filing fee within eleven (11) days of the date of entry hereof.
On November
22,
2017,
the
Court
received
a
letter
from
Schuett in which he states that he "can prove new injuries, not
[chronic] problems. /1
(Letter 1, ECF No. 4.)
In his letter, he
states that he has a "shoulder injury and right arm injury" from
an incident in April 2017 (id. at 2), that he has fallen several
times, and that he has had "twenty three
[his]
legs in these falls.
indicates
that
he
has
/1
(Id. at 3.)
received
medical
(23) cuts or gashes to
Schuett also clearly
attention
for
these
Schuett v. Attorney Gen. of Cal., No. 14-6794 {C.D. Cal. Sept.
16, 2014)i Schuett v. United States Marshal Serv., No. 2:13-cv010163 JCM (D. Nev. July 29, 2013); Schuett v. Sheriff, Cnty.
Jail of Rochester, New York, Civ. No. 6:95-cv-6216 (W.D.N.Y. May
30, 1995); Schuett v. Sheriff, Cnty. Jail of Rochester, New
York, Civ. No. 6:95-cv-6157 (W.D.N.Y. May 30, 1995}; Schuett v.
BM Fauber, Civ. No. 88-73527 HWG (E.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 1988).
2
The United States District Court for the District of
Arizona cited four of the above-listed cases and one additional
case:
Schuett v.
CEO-CCA-Correctional Corp.
of America,
No. 2:14-cv-1431-JAD-PAL (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2014).
2
injuries.
Schuett vaguely contends that
(Id. at 6.)
has gone beyond imminent danger."
lack of
candor and
allegations
Schuett
are
long
pattern
insufficient
of
State of Colo.,
abusive
such
demonstrate
that
serious physical harm.
See
credibly
157 F.3d 1226,
(concluding inmate failed to satisfy
§
specify
of
"even
the
general
Given his past
litigation,
to
is in imminent danger of
White v.
\\every injury
nature
1232
(10th Cir.
1998)
1915(g) where he did not
the
'serious
physical
injury' he asserts is imminent").
More
than eleven
failed to pay the
full
(11)
days
$400. 00
have
filing
elapsed and Schuett has
fee.
Accordingly,
the
action will be dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to
send a
copy of
this Memorandum
Opinion to Schuett.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Robert E. Payne
Senior 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?