United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
SAMMIE L. BOOKER-EL, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES T. MOODY, District Judge.
Sammie L. Booker-El, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint without paying the filing fee. However, Booker-El is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because he has on three or more prior occasions filed a complaint or appeal which did not state a claim for which relief could be granted. This is commonly known as the "Three Strikes Rule" and Booker-El has accumulated six strikes:
(1) Booker v. Pugh, 3:10-CV-007 (N.D. Ind. filed January 5, 2010). Case dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on January 14, 2010;
(2) Booker v. Superintendent, 3:10-CV-017 (N.D. Ind. filed January 13, 2010). Case dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on January 22, 2014;
(3) Booker-El v. Pugh, 3:10-CV-206 (N.D. Ind. filed May 21, 2010). Case dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on May 27, 2010.
(4) Booker-El v. Wilson, 3:10-CV-222 (N.D. Ind. filed June 1, 2010). Case dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on June 16, 2010; and
(5) Booker-El v. Pugh, 10-2490 (7th Cir. filed June 21, 2010). Denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis by the Seventh Circuit on December 30, 2010, because the appeal was frivolous.
(6) Booker-El v. Wilson, 10-3000 (7th Cir. filed August 26, 2010). Denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis by the Seventh Circuit on December 30, 2010, because the appeal was frivolous.
It is not news to Booker-El that he has "struck out." This court has informed him of that fact twice before:
(1) Booker-El v. Pugh, 3:10-CV-206, order denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis on June 24, 2010; and
(2) Booker-El v. Trotter, 3:10-CV-251, order denying leave proceed in forma pauperis on July 9, 2010.
An inmate with three or more strikes "can use the partial prepayment option in § 1915(b) only if in the future he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.'" Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir. 1996). In order to meet the imminent danger standard, the threat complained of must be real and proximate. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003). Only "genuine emergencies" qualify as a basis for circumventing § 1915(g). Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). In this case, Booker-El is suing the United States District Court complaining about the filing fees he is paying in his many frivolous cases and appeals. This is not an allegation of imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thus, he may not proceed in forma pauperis and this case must be dismissed. See Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999).
Moreover, the fee remains due, and we held in Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 436-37 (7th Cir. 1997), that unpaid docket fees incurred by litigants subject to § 1915(g) lead straight to an order forbidding further litigation. Sloan's appeal is dismissed for failure to pay the appellate filing and docket fees. Until Sloan has paid in full all outstanding fees and sanctions in all civil actions he has filed, the clerks of all courts in this circuit will return unfiled all papers he tenders. This order does not apply to criminal cases or petitions challenging the terms of his ...