CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.
AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2013, upon preliminary consideration of plaintiff's Bivens complaint, in which he alleges that the named defendants owe him certain duties pursuant to the "bad man" provision of the Sioux Treaty of Fort Laramie and have violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to "voice to skull" technology (Doc. 1, at 2), inter alia , and it appearing that he seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and it appearing that the "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("PLRA"), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915, prohibits him from proceeding in forma pauperis as he has had three prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a viable claim, and it further appearing that there is no indiction that plaintiff "is under imminent serious physical injury, " 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (setting forth the three strikes rule which provides that an inmate who has three prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a viable claim may not proceed in forma pauperis "unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury"); see also Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) ( en banc ), and that as a direct result of the repetitive nature and volume of civil actions filed by plaintiff, the Western District of Pennsylvania determined that plaintiff abused the in forma pauperis privilege and, therefore, restricted his ability to file future civil actions, except habeas corpus petitions, without a statement certifying that: "(1) that the claims he wishes to present are new claims never before raised and disposed of on the merits by any federal court, (2) that he believes the facts alleged in his complaint to be true, and (3) that he knows of no reason to believe his claims are foreclosed by controlling law, " Banks v. Unknown Named Number of U.S. Postal Inspectors, et al., No. 2:13-cv-1198 , 2013 WL 5945786, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2013), and because plaintiff has filed, since August 2013, in this district alone, thirty-five civil actions (including this one), this Court concludes that a restraint on plaintiff's ability to proceed in this district is also warranted, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 2) to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
4. As to all future civil actions, except petitions for writ of habeas corpus, in which plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis without full prepayment of fees and costs, in addition to the other requirements for requesting in forma pauperis status, plaintiff shall attach to his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis a statement certifying: (1) that the claims he wishes to present are new claims never before raised and disposed of on the merits by any federal court, (2) that he believes the facts alleged in his complaint to be true, and (3) that he knows of no reason to believe his claims are foreclosed by controlling law.
5. If plaintiff fails to attach this certification the complaint will be stricken without prejudice by order of Court.
6. If it is determined that a false certification has been made, plaintiff may be held in contempt of court and the Court may impose appropriate sanctions and/or punishment, after notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter.
7. In the event plaintiff pays the full filing fee, and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis , the ...