DocketNumber: No. 3:96CV1821 (JBA)
Citation Numbers: 118 F. Supp. 2d 172
Judges: Arterton
Filed Date: 4/28/2000
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/26/2022
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC. # 37]
The pro se plaintiff, John R. Demos, currently a prisoner incarcerated at the Washington State Penitentiary located in Walla Walla, Washington, filed his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Complaint alleging prisoner rights violations on September 11, 1996 [Doc. # 1]. Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was granted.
On January 21, 2000, defendant United States Tobacco Company filed this Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 37] on the grounds that: 1) this action filed in forma pauperis was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) since at least three cases brought by plaintiff have been dismissed as frivolous, and 2) plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s direction that he file a Second Amended Complaint in compliance with its direction in the Court’s Ruling on Defendant’s earlier motion to dismiss.
Section 1915(g), enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, § 804(d), 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil proceeding [in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 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 was frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
The only exception to Section 1915(g) is if the prisoner is under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff makes no claim that he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury and after reviewing the allegations contained in plaintiffs complaint, in the Court’s judgment, plaintiffs claims do not fall within the “imminent danger” exception. Similarly, plaintiffs argument that Section 1915(g) is violative of the equal protection right guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment
Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this action under Section 1915(g) is GRANTED. See McFadden v. Parpan, et al., 16 F.Supp.2d 246 (E.D.N.Y.1998) (dismissing action where court subsequently realized in forma pauperis status had been improvidently granted). Accordingly, plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without prejudice. If plaintiff elects to institute new proceedings, he must pay applicable filing fees and service costs. All pending motions in the instant action [Docs. # 48 & # 49] are denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
. Although plaintiff asserts his equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, it is more properly construed under the Fifth Amendment since Section 1915(g) is a federal statute. Nonetheless, "the standards for analyzing equal protection claims under either amendment are identical.” Nicholas v. Tucker, 114 F.3d 17, 19 (2d Cir.1997) (finding that another section of the PLRA requiring prisoners to pay filing fee did not deny prisoner access to courts).