Moon v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
___________________________________
)
DARNELL W. MOON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12-0416 (RWR)
)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the Court’s Order
Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Stay These
Proceedings [Dkt. #15]. 1 Because a ruling on the motion potentially would dispose of this case,
in its October 25, 2012 Order, the Court advised the plaintiff, among other things, of his
obligation to file an opposition or other response to the motion. Further, the Order expressly
warned the plaintiff that, if he failed to file his opposition by November 26, 2012, the Court
would treat the motion as conceded. To date, the plaintiff neither has filed an opposition nor
requested additional time to do so. The Court will treat the defendant’s motion as conceded.
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), unless a prisoner “is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury,” he may not proceed in forma pauperis if while
incarcerated he has filed at least three prior cases that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or
for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3,
6 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has accumulated the requisite three strikes. Moon v. Mo. Div. of
1
Plaintiff’s Motion for Teleconference/Video Hearing [Dkt. #17] will be denied as moot.
1
Emp’t Sec., No. 09-4140, 2009 WL 3261920, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 5, 2009) (denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing claims without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(g)); see
Moon v. Nat’l Asset Recovery Servs., No. 09-1129 (E.D. Mo. July 28, 2009) (dismissing as
frivolous); Moon v. United States, No. 09-0006 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 3, 2009) (same); Moon v. Nat’l
Asset Recovery Servs., No. 09-0117 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2009) (same). The plaintiff does not
demonstrate that he is now facing an imminent danger of serious physical injury, and therefore
he does not fall within the sole exception to the “three strikes” provision of the PLRA.
Accordingly, the Court will revoke the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, vacate the order
granting his in forma pauperis application, bar the plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in any future civil action filed in this district, and dismiss this action
without prejudice to refiling upon payment in full of the $350.00 filing fee.
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Signed this 10th day of December, 2012.
/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge
2