The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge
Before the Court is a motion from Defendants Harley G. Lappin, Harrell Watts, Kevin Estrada, Beth Bryant, Byron Kent Tolson, Estus Hood, and United States of America's (Doc. 52); this motion seeks reconsideration of the Court's granting Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion (Doc. 6). Plaintiff filed an objection to that motion (Doc. 57), which was countered by Defendants' response (Doc. 63). The Court is now prepared to rule on Defendants' motion.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis because he has accumulated three or more strikes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). They also argue that Plaintiff has joined several unrelated claims and Defendants in this action, a practice that the Seventh Circuit has determined to be in violation of federal rules. Finally, they assert that Plaintiff deliberately made misrepresentations to the Court, including the filing of a forged document. In response, Plaintiff asserts that he is not the same individual who filed some of the cases cited by Defendants. He also suggests that the Court cannot now revisit its decision to grant him pauper status, and he asserts that the Court cannot sever unrelated claims into separate lawsuits.
After carefully examining the exhibits and affidavits provided by Defendants, the Court makes the following findings:
First, the handwriting and signature on the affidavit with the in forma pauperis motion (Doc. 2, p. 4) clearly does not match the signature on Carmen Rinella's affidavit (Doc. 63-4). However, in comparing that writing to that of Plaintiff, the Court cannot conclusively find that Plaintiff was the person who forged her signature.
Second, despite his assertion that he is not the Wallace Mitchell who filed prior lawsuits, the Court finds that his Bureau of Prisons identification number reflected in the docket of these cases conclusively proves otherwise. Therefore, it is clear that Plaintiff has accumulated three or more strikes. See Mitchell v. Davis, Case No. 99-cv-2330-UNA (D.D.C., filed Sept. 1, 1999) (dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)); Mitchell v. Olds, Case No. 99-cv-1338-TPJ (D.D.C., filed May 27, 2999) (dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Mitchell v. Runyon, Case No. 95-cv-1258-UNA (D.D.C., filed July 25, 1995) (dismissed pursuant to former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)); Mitchell v. Lab, Inc., Case No. 93-cv-4408-AJL (D.N.J., filed Oct. 4, 1993) (dismissed as frivolous under former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)); Mitchell v. Soles, Case No. 93-cv-2184-MHS (N.D.Ga., filed Sept. 27, 1993) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
Accordingly, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court will address this point with respect to each of the claims remaining in this action.
In an order entered March 31, 2008, the Court dismissed several claims and defendants from this action (Doc. 30). The claims remaining at this time are:
COUNT 1: Against Defendants Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Lappin, Watts, John Doe 2, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, John Doe 1, John Doe 3, John Doe 9, John Doe 5, Jane Doe 4, Merriman, Hood and Bryant for interfering with his access to the courts (¶¶ 1-4, 6-7, 12-13, 15, 18, 21-23, 25, 27, 29).
COUNT 2: Against Defendants John Doe 3, Lappin, John Doe 4, John Doe 2, Watts, John Doe 10, John Doe 11, John Doe 1, John Doe 6, and John Doe 9 for denial of medical treatment for a suspected heart attack (¶ 5), an injured shoulder (¶ 19), an injured arm and arthritis (¶ 26), and dental treatment (¶ 36).
COUNT 3: Against Defendants Lappin, Watts, John Doe 6, John Doe 8, Patterson, John Doe 1, and John Doe 9 for denial of mental health ...