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, )

Download PDF
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 <P~ 7( 'z.ol? Date: Richmond, Virginia 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?