Grant v. Fitchburg Police Department et al

Filing 11

Order Construing NOTICE OF APPEAL as Request to Proceed in forma pauperis. Leave to proceed IFP denied because three strikes have been recorded against Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B Crabb on 2/10/2009. (arw),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------JAM ES EDWARD GRANT, ORDER Petitioner, 0 8 -c v -6 6 9 -s lc 1 v. D EB R A BARTH of Columbus, WI, R espo nd ent. --------------------------------------------JAM ES EDWARD GRANT, ORDER Petitioner, 0 8 -c v -6 8 5 -s lc v. D AN E COUNTY JAIL STAFF, D A N E COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, D E P U T Y ZEIGLER, DEPUTY MAICKE, D E P U T Y JOEL, DEPUTY WILSON and A L L DEPUTY SHERIFFS OF THE DANE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION/JAIL STAFF, R espo nd ents. --------------------------------------------JAM ES EDWARD GRANT, ORDER

As stated in previous orders in these cases, the cases were assigned to Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker. Because the parties have not consented to his jurisdiction, I have assum ed jurisdiction over the case for the purpose of issuing this order.

1

P e ti ti o n e r , 0 8 -c v -6 8 9 -s lc v. AG EN T DANIEL ROBINSON, MPD BENISH, TIM HAMMOND, D C T F JOHN DOE and MPD JOHN DOE, R espo nd ents. --------------------------------------------JAM ES EDWARD GRANT, ORDER Petitioner, 0 8 -c v -6 9 8 -s lc v. FIT C H B U R G POLICE DEPARTMENT; D IS TR IC T ATTORNEY DOMESTIC DIVISION; D E N IS E MILLER; Unit Supervisor RAISBECK; an d MARLYS HOWE, R espo nd ents. --------------------------------------------JAM ES EDWARD GRANT, ORDER Petitioner, 0 8 -c v -6 9 9 -s lc v. ER IC, Manager of Anchor Bank; A N C H O R BANK OF WEST-TOWNE CORPORATE; A N C H O R BANK WEST-TOWNE, OWNER; and A N C H O R BANK CORPORATE, R espo nd ents.

2

--------------------------------------------JAM ES EDWARD GRANT, ORDER Petitioner, 0 8 -c v -7 0 3 -s lc v. W AU N AK EE POLICE, See Case No. 2007CM003101, R espo nd ent. --------------------------------------------JAM ES EDWARD GRANT, ORDER Petitioner, 0 8 -c v -7 2 7 -s lc v. M A D IS O N POLICE DEPARTMENT, S TA T E OF WISCONSIN, M PO KATHYRN PETERSON, M PO CINDY THEINBUSEN, M PO D JEFF TWING, A D A JOSEPH E. MIMIER and M A R Y L HAVE, R espo nd ents. --------------------------------------------JAM ES EDWARD GRANT, ORDER Petitioner, 0 8 -c v -7 4 6 -s lc v. D A V ID J. MAHONEY, KENNETH MCNEAL,

3

S . KOWALSI and DOCTOR ALI, R espo nd ents. --------------------------------------------JAM ES EDWARD GRANT, ORDER Petitioner, 0 8 -c v -7 4 9 -s lc v. JO S EPH E. MIMIER, MARLYS HOWE an d KENNETH MCNEIL, R espo nd ents. --------------------------------------------Petition er James Edward Grant, a prisoner at the Dodge Correctional Institution in W au pu n, Wisconsin, filed proposed complaints for money damages in the nine actions captioned above. He asked for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and was assessed an initial partial payment in each case. He paid the initial partial payments in three of these cases, case no s. 08-cv-669-slc, 08-cv-685-slc and 08-cv-689-slc. I denied petitioner leave to proceed in form a pauperis in each of those cases because his complaints failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. Grant v. Barth, 08-cv-669-slc, decided January 8, 2008; Grant v. R ob inso n, 08-cv-689-slc, decided January 9, 2008; and Grant v. Zeigler, 08-685-slc, decided January 15, 2008. On January 16, 2009, I denied petitioner's requests for leave to proceed in fo rm a pauperis in the remaining six actions captioned above because he no longer qualified for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in light of the strikes he received in case

4

nos. 08-cv-669-slc, 08-cv-685-slc and 08-cv-689-slc. Now petitioner has filed a notice of appeal in each of these nine cases. Because he has not paid the $455 fee for filing an appeal in any of these cases, I construe his notice to include a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in each case. U nfortunately for petitioner, I conclude that he is not eligible to proceed on appeal in form a pauperis in any of his cases because he has struck out under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). With his accumulation of three strikes, so long as petitioner is incarcerated he cannot bring any new law s uit or appeal without prepaying the filing fee unless he can show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As has been stated in previous orders in each of these cases, petitioner has not made the required showing of imminent danger of a serio us physical injury. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of the initial partial payment provision of § 1915. He owes the $455 fee in each case in full immediately. He may delay payment for two reasons only: 1) his complete destitution; or 2) if he challenges in the court of appeals within thirty days of the date he receives this order the decision to deny his request fo r leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeals because of his § 1915(g) status. Fed. R. Ap p. P. 24(a)(5). If the court of appeals decides that it was improper to deny petitioner's re q u e s ts for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because of his three-strike status, then it will rem an d the matter to this court for a determination whether petitioner's appeals are taken in goo d faith. If the court of appeals determines that this court was correct in concluding that § 1 9 1 5(g) bars petitioner from taking his appeals in forma pauperis, the $455

5

filing fee payments will be due in full immediately. Whatever the scenario, petitioner is respo nsible for insuring that the required sums are remitted to the court at the appropriate ti m e. Also, whether the court of appeals allows petitioner to pay the fees in installments or agrees with this court that he owes them immediately, petitioner's obligation to pay the $455 app eal filing fee in each case will be entered into this court's financial records so that the fees m ay be collected as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on app eal in each of the above-captioned cases are DENIED because three strikes have been reco rd ed against him under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Further, IT IS ORDERED that the clerk of cou rt insure that petitioner's obligation to pay the $455 fee in each case is reflected in this cou rt's financial records. E n tered this 10t h day of February, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

6