Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Husband v. Knapp

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

April 6, 2015

EUNICE HUSBAND, Plaintiff,
v.
D. KNAPP, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge.

AND NOW, THIS 6th DAY OF APRIL, 2015, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Carison's Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Objections thereto, and all related documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 34) are OVERRULED.
a. Plaintiff's Objections 2 and 5 continue to assert the claims that Plaintiff was in fact in imminent danger of serious physical injury under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(g) at the time of he filed the Complaint. However, the Report and Recommendation properly rejected these claims. Plaintiff cannot be considered to have been in "imminent danger of serious physical injury" at the time he filed the Complaint because the dangers complained of either occurred before the Complaint was filed or are too vague and speculative to be considered imminent dangers.
b. Objections 3 and 4 are meritless. Plaintiff admits to having three or more complaints dismissed by a Court of the United States on the grounds that they were "frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim." He admits this in other filings throughout the case. ( See, e.g., Mot. for IFP Status, Doc. 2, at 1; Reply to Defs.' Br. in Opp. to Pl.'s Objections to Rep. & Rec., Doc. 36, at 3.) In the absence of imminent danger, these dismissals constitute grounds to revoke his in forma pauperis status under the PLRA. Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary are merely attempts to collaterally attack these other courts' final and valid judgments. However, the PLRA only asks whether three previous actions were dismissed, not whether those dismissals can be justified by third parties.
c. Objection 1 is unnecessary, as Plaintiff's personal characteristics have no bearing on the legal issues raised in Defendant's Motion.
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) is ADOPTED, for the reasons stated therein.
3. Defendants' Motion to Remove Plaintiff's IFP Status (Doc. 24) is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiff shall have SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date of this Order in which to pay the full amount of the filing fee.
5. The case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
6. Following remand, the case is STAYED until such time as Plaintiff's filing fee is fully paid.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.