The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Doc. 34). Plaintiff initially filed this lawsuit on January 7, 2011, and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in this case without prepayment of the Court's usual $350.00 filing fee in a civil case. (See Docs. 1,2).
In general, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 allows a federal court to permit a prisoner who is indigent to bring a "suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal," without prepayment of fees upon presentation of an affidavit stating the prisoner's assets together with "the nature of the action . . . and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, [i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section 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.
The Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record. See Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994). In an Order denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed IFP, Judge Gilbert cited to three "strikes" the Plaintiff has incurred within the meaning of § 1915, and which are all matters of public record (Doc. 9). Judge Gilbert concluded that Plaintiff was not under imminent danger of serious physical injury so as to escape the "three strikes" rule of § 1915, and therefore denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed IFP (Doc. 9). Plaintiff was then ordered to pay the full filing fee by a date certain (Doc. 9). Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee in full as ordered, so Judge Gilbert dismissed the case without prejudice (Doc. 15).
Plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Court noted that there are two ways to view Plaintiff's act of injuring himself as it relates to Plaintiff's claim of imminent danger (Doc. 34). The first is to view Plaintiff's self-inflicted injuries as a tactic to obtain attention from jailers or cause problems for the jailers (Doc. 34). A second alternative posited by the Court is to consider Plaintiff's injuries to himself as a result of mental illness (Doc. 34). If the second alternative is true, Plaintiff is entitled to litigate IFP, without prepayment of the Court's usual $350.00 filing fee (Doc. 34). The Court remanded with instructions to receive evidence and make findings relevant to Plaintiff's IFP status (Doc. 34). On January 19, 2012, this case was transferred to the undersigned district judge for all future proceedings.
The Court finds that Plaintiff's act of inflicting injury upon himself is a strategic tactic designed to obtain attention from his jailers. In support of this conclusion, the Court finds the following relevant facts:
1. Plaintiff, Anthony Gay, is currently incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center ("Tamms"). Offender Search: Inmate Search, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, http://www2.illinois.gov/IDOC/OFFENDER/Pages/InmateSearch.aspx (last visited Oct. 3, 2012).
2. Plaintiff has been incarcerated at various locations within the Illinois Department of Corrections since 1994 (Doc. 73, Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing, p. 4).
3. Plaintiff began inflicting injury upon himself by cutting himself in 1998 (Doc. 73, p. 42).
4. In 1998, Plaintiff witnessed a fellow inmate purposefully cut himself and subsequently receive care and compassion from prison staff as a result of the wounds (Doc. 73, p. 42-43).
5. After Plaintiff witnessed this incident, Plaintiff began cutting himself in an attempt to obtain care and treatment from prison staff (Doc. 73, p. 42-43).
6. The sole reason Plaintiff began cutting himself is for the purpose of receiving care and compassion from ...