The opinion of the court was delivered by: (magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
The plaintiff, Dawn Ball, is an inmate housed in the Restricted Housing Unit at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) Muncy, who by her own account suffers from a cascading array of severe mental illnesses, and who, in other litigation before this Court, candidly acknowledges that she is profoundly disturbed, informing the Court that:
My mental health is declining. I suffer from OCD so bad I scrub my hands till they bleed, confusion, PTSD, disassociative disorder, I smell, see and hear things not there, severely stressed, phobias, agoraphobia, severe anxiety, lack of interest in things, lack of arousal in things, racing thoughts, suicidal, cognitive problems and disorders, lack of interest in life, disoriented, dizzyness, paranoid--schizophrenic, constant worry, frightened scared, can't properly care for myself, tics, bipolar, manic depressive, mood swings that are so severe, can't think clearly....
Ball v. Beard, No. 1:09-CV-845 (Doc. 42, pp.6-7).
Furthermore. Ball is also an inmate who is alleged to engage in destructive, self-defeating and senseless behavior, conduct which was aptly described by prison officials in one of Ball's companion cases in the following terms:
[Y]our destruction of multiple cells . . . by spreading feces and urine combined with paper products from your property and cell related property made it impossible to identify your missing property item by item as you submit. (Ball v. Sisley, No. 1:11-CV-877 (M.D.Pa., Doc. 27, p.13.)
While she suffers from paranoia, schizophrenia, and experiences these visual and auditory hallucinations, Ball is also a prodigious federal court litigant, bringing numerous lawsuits based upon her perception of the events that take place around her in prison. Indeed, at present Ball has a total of twenty two lawsuits pending before this court.*fn1 Ball has also been a prodigiously unsuccessful litigant, who has had at least three prior lawsuits dismissed either for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies, or as frivolous on the grounds that the lawsuit failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See, e.g., Ball v. SCI Muncy, No. 1:08-CV-391 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Hartman, No. 1:09-CV-844 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Butts, No. 1:11-CV-1068, (M.D.Pa.); Ball v. Butts, No. 11-2862, 2011 WL 4375782, 1 (3d Cir. Sept 21, 2011).
In December 2011, the defendants in five of these actions--Ball v. Sipe, No. 1:11-CV-1830 (M.D.Pa.); Ball v. Craver, No. 1:11-CV-1831 (M.D.Pa.); Ball v. Powley, No. 1:11-CV-1832 (M..D.Pa.); Ball v. Cooper, No. 1:11-CV-1833 (M.D.Pa.); Ball v. Famiglio, No. 1:11-CV-1834 (M.D.Pa.)--moved to revoke Ball's in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), and moved to stay proceedings pending the litigation of these motions to revoke in forma pauperis status.
On December 8, 2011, we concluded that addressing the threshold issue of Ball's in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), was appropriate here, and that a stay was proper for this purpose. Accordingly, we set a briefing schedule for the briefing of these motions to revoke Ball's in forma pauperis status, and further ordered, in clear and precise terms, as follows: "Further proceedings are STAYED in the above-captioned cases pending resolution of the joint motions to revoke Ball's in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g)." Ball subsequently sought, and obtained, an extension of time in which to respond to these motions, which raised important threshold questions regarding whether Ball should be permitted to continue to maintain these actions in forma pauperis, and we granted these requests.
Ball has now discounted and ignored the obligations placed upon her by these prior court orders. Specifically, Ball has failed to abide by these stay orders by filing a series of discovery motions; namely--
-- Motions to Take Inmate Declarations;
-- Motions for Examination by Outside ...