United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
June 24, 2015
JAMES HENLEY, Plaintiff,
BETH HARDESTY-MONTGOMERY, ASHLEY HARDESTY-MONTGOMERY, Defendants.
ENTRY RESCINDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE United States District Court
The court may, in appropriate circumstances, rescind a decision to grant a litigant in forma pauperis status. Wartman v. Branch 7, Civil Division, County Court, 510 F.2d 130, 133 (7th Cir. 1975). This is an appropriate case for such action.
The grant of leave to proceed in forma pauperis is REVOKED. The reason for this ruling is that the plaintiff was not eligible to proceed in that fashion at the time he filed this lawsuit. More specifically, the plaintiff is a prisoner and has on three or more prior occasions brought an action or appeal that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, he was ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It can be added here that the narrow exception to the barrier created by § 1915(g)– where a prisoner alleges that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury”–does not apply to the claims or allegations in the complaint.
In Evans v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 150 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 1998), it was noted that a prisoner-litigant in these circumstances is entitled to know the cases the court relies on when making the three-strikes determination. For the plaintiffs reference, the cases on which the court relies in finding three or more “strikes” consist of the following:
Henley v. Aramark, 3:15-cv-95-RLM (N.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2015) (dismissing action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
Henley v. Harris, 1:14-cv-317-WTL-DML (S.D. Ind. April 21, 2014) (dismissing action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
Henley v. Marion County Public Defender, 1:14-cv-1050-JMS-DKL (S.D. Ind. Sept. 8, 2014) (dismissing action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
The plaintiff shall have through July 8, 2015, in which to pay the filing fee for this action. No initial partial filing fee was paid. Accordingly, the balance due is Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00). Failure to timely pay the filing fee in full will result in dismissal of this action without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.