The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Renée Marie Bumb
This matter coming before the Court by way of Plaintiff's re-application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket entry #14), and it appearing that:
1. On February 14, 2008, Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at SCI Graterford, executed a "Motion and Declaration in support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis." On March 18, 2008, the Clerk received from Plaintiff a 24-page handwritten document, dated March 11, 2008, labeled "Amended Complaint" (docket entry #3), a document labeled "Plaintiff's 'Amended' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction" (docket entry #2-2), and a "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction," dated March 12, 2008 (docket entry 2-2). Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order based on the following alleged threatened irreparable harm:
This plaintiff has alleged that he is being subjected to continuous punishment by the defendants in retaliation because of his litigious behavior, who also seek to "break" his litigious behavior. The tactics [e]mployed have thus far been physical and psychological abuse; denial of food (edible); subjection to 24-hour lighting, constant noise, housing around mentally and emotionally disturbed prisoners; unsanitary conditions; denial of basic hygienic items and showers; denial of clean and adequate clothing and bedding; denial of legal and personal property; and [illegible] to unventilated cell and extreme temperatures. (Mem. of Law, docket entry 2-2, p. 3.)
2. By Order entered September 2, 2008, this Court denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), on the ground that, while incarcerated, Plaintiff has had at least three prior civil actions and/or appeals dismissed by a court of the United States on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see, e.g., Brown v. Brierton, Civil No. 91-0471 (M.D. Fla. 1991); Brown v. Brierton, C.A. No. 92-2030 (11th Cir. 1992); Brown v. Federal Laboratories, Inc., Civil No. 89-0507 (M.D. Fla. 1989), and the facts set forth in Plaintiff's various submissions did not show that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
3. On September 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion [docket entry #9] to reconsider the Order denying in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff asserted the following:
This court's ruling is clearly erroneous as it fail[s] to recognize the 'on-going' danger of Plaintiff's situation and based its decision solely on 'imminent danger . . . .' In this case, Plaintiff has alleged a continuous history of beatings, abuse, denial and sabotaging of food, housing in very unsanitary and inhuman conditions, and the sabotaging of his legal efforts, which is done in attempts to punish him and prevent further litigation and in retaliation, and, which has caused serious injuries and has aggravated his pre-existing illnesses. (Motion at pp. 3-4.)
4. By Order and Memorandum Opinion entered September 24, 2009, this Court denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice but granted Plaintiff 30 days to submit another in forma pauperis application stating facts showing that Plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
5. On January 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for an enlargement of time to comply with the aforesaid Order. By Order entered January 6, 2010, this Court granted Plaintiff 30 additional days to show imminent danger of serious physical injury.
6. On February 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a 19-page declaration. (Docket entry #14.) Plaintiff asserts that he was diagnosed with Hepatitis C in May 2000, while incarcerated at SCI Pittsburgh. Plaintiff further states that he has suffered with post traumatic stress disorder since 1997. The first 16 pages of the declaration describe the symptoms and progression of Hepatitis C and post-traumatic stress disorder. The final three pages contain the following allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury:
Plaintiff is in imminent and ongoing danger of serious physical, psychological, and emotional harm for the following reasons:
(a) The retaliatory tactics employed against Plaintiff by defendants and their agents are preventing him from prolonging his liver life by fighting off the adverse effects/destruction caused by HCV, thereby subjecting him to premature death; which is achieved by their refusal to provide adequate and sanitary diet, denying access to a licensed nutritionist or dietician for specific dietary recommendation, causing excessive stress (causing Plaintiff's heart rate and blood pressure to increase, and triggering emotional feelings of anxiety, fear, insecurity and anger.
(b) The stress caused also places Plaintiff in danger of increasing the seriousness of his heart disease . . . , having a stoke, and continued depression of his immune functions.
(c) Preventing Plaintiff from obtaining adequate amounts of sleep has intensified his depressed and anxious feelings, creating a vicious cycle, thereby adversely effecting ...