UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
March 13, 2007
WILLIAM HILL A/K/A WENDELL HUDSON, PLAINTIFF,
ROGER E. WALKER, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Court
The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, d/e 2, is denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and the complaint is summarily dismissed with prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to advise the court that he had "struck out." The case is terminated. Having brought this action, the plaintiff nevertheless remains obligated to pay the full filing fee. Before pursuing any future litigation, the plaintiff must pay any outstanding fees.
The plaintiff, a state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The motion must be denied because the plaintiff has accumulated at least three "strikes."
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), enacted on April 26, 1996, provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 "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). At least three of the plaintiff's previous actions have been dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., in the Northern District of Illinois:
1. Hudson v. Peters, Case No. 93 C 4418 (N.D. Ill.), dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915(d). See Minute Order of 8/10/93 (Kocoras, J.)
2. Hill v. Fry, Case No. 95 C 7694, dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec 1915(d). See Minute Order of 1/26/96 (Conlon, J.)
3. Hill v. Ventures Stores, et al., Case No. 96 C 0574, dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim by Minute Order of 11/14/96 (Plunkett, J.)
4. Hudson v. O'Malley, Case No. 96 C 1002, dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec 1915(d). See Minute Order of 2/29/96 (Alesia, J.).
5. Hudson v. Hiland Park Police Dept.. Case No. 96 C 1951, dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec 1915(d). See Minute Order of 4/30/96 (Williams, J.)
6. Hill v. Bertucci, et al., Case No. 96 C 3337, dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec 1915(d). See Minute Order of 7/30/96 (Williams, J.)
Further, the plaintiff was advised he had struck out in Hudson v. Sheahan, Case No. 99 C 8109. See Minute Order of January 16, 2002 (Kocoras, J.) Notwithstanding his knowledge that he is barred from doing so, the plaintiff has nevertheless sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As a result, this court spent close to two hours researching the plaintiff's litigation history to determine whether he was eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. Consequently, the plaintiff's effective "fraud" on the court must "lead to immediate termination of the suit." Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999). The complaint is accordingly dismissed with prejudice.
It is therefore ordered:
1. The plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis  is denied.
2. Based on the foregoing and Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999), the plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
3. Any remaining matters are rendered moot. The clerk of the court is directed to terminate this lawsuit in its entirety.
4. However, having brought this action, the plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1).
5. If the plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues the plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $455 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.