United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
November 18, 2005.
DUNCAN J. McNEIL, Plaintiff,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID HERNDON, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 8, 2005, the Court issued an order (Doc. 9)
denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because Plaintiff had on three or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained, 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. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the full
filing fee within 15 days or have the case dismissed for failure
to comply with an order of the Court.
Plaintiff responded to the Court's order with a motion (Doc.
10) in which he claimed that he is under "imminent danger of
serious physical injury" and should be granted in forma
pauperis status despite his three strikes. The Court found that
Plaintiff's allegations of imminent danger were wholly unrelated
to the claims stated in his complaint, and thus could not be used
as a basis for proceeding under the "imminent danger" exception
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff was again ordered to pay the
full filing fee within 15 days or have the case dismissed for
failure to comply with an order of the Court (Doc. 11). Plaintiff has now responded with two motions in which he seeks
"relief from sua sponte `void' orders of dismissal," to amend his
complaint, for relief from the Court's orders of 9/08/05 and
10/03/05," and for extension of time (Docs. 12 & 13). In the
documents, Plaintiff reiterates his claims and seeks an extension
of time to file additional documents in the case.
These motions do not alter the Court's earlier conclusions that
Plaintiff has accumulated three "strikes" pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that he is not under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to
pay the filing fee in full, and he has not done so.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with
prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.