McLean v. John Doe(s) et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief United States District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 2/16/2017. (tvt)
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT
AT ROANOKl:, VA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
JOHN DOE, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 7:17CV00054
By: Glen E. Conrad
Chief United States District Judge
Quentin McLean, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging that prison officials interfered with and failed to deliver to him incoming legal
mail related to a bankruptcy proceeding. McLean has not prepaid the requisite filing fee and
applies to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review of the record, the court finds that the action
must be summarily dismissed without prejudice based on McLean's many prior civil actions that
have been dismissed.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 substantially amended the in forma pauperis
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The purpose of the Act was to require all prisoner litigants suing
government entities or officials to pay filing fees in full, either through prepayment or through
installments withheld from the litigant's inmate trust account.
denies the installment payment method to prisoners who have "three strikes" -
who have had three previous cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to
state a claim, unless the three-striker inmate shows "imminent danger of serious physical injury."
McLean has brought such actions or appeals on three or more prior occasions.
McLean v. Faust, No. 2:99CV625 (E.D. Va. June 2, 1999) (dismissed with prejudice for failure
to state a claim), aff'd 1999 WL 1255773 (4th Cir. Dec. 27, 1999); McLean v. Bolling, No.
7:99CV341 (W.D. Va. July 26, 1999) (dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim), affd
sub nom., McLean v. Angelone, 1999 WL 1065033 (4th Cir. Nov. 24, 1999); McLean v. United
States, No. 2:06CV447 (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2006) (dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim), affd 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009). The court notes that in McLean v. United States, 566
F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated that
McLean was not a three striker. However, after the court affirmed the district court's dismissal
of McLean's case for failure to state a claim, McLean received his third strike. As noted by the
dissent in that case, "[g]iven that the majority agrees that McLean has at least two previous
strikes, McLean should hereafter be deemed a three-striker ...." See also, McLean v. Schilling,
No. 08-6479 (4th Cir. Sept. 1, 2009) (Court acknowledged that McLean was a three-striker and
revoked in forma pauperis status).
Accordingly, McLean may proceed in forma pauperis
(without prepayment of the filing fee) only if he can show that he faces imminent danger of
serious physical injury. § 1915(g).
McLean's submissions in this case indicate that he filed for bankruptcy in 2016. In
September 2016, the bankruptcy court dismissed his petition, based on his failure to pay the
filing fee. McLean alleges that he never received the dismissal order, so could not appeal. He
asserts, with no factual support, that the defendants (unnamed prison investigators and a mail
clerk) "unreasonably interfered with" the incoming mailing and should pay him compensatory
damages of $15,000. These allegations do not suggest that McLean was in imminent danger of
any physical injury related to his claims at the time he filed his complaint.
Because the records reflect that McLean has at least three "strikes" under § 1915(g) and
he has not demonstrated that he is in imminent danger of physical harm, the court denies him the
opportunity to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses the complaint without prejudice under
§ 1915(g). An appropriate order will issue this day.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this memorandum opinion and accompanying
order to plaintiff.
t l., ti4 day ofFebruary, 2017.
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?