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.

Lawrence v. Mathena

United States District Court, Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division

October 28, 2014

MICHAEL ISIAH LAWRENCE, Plaintiff,
v.
RANDALL C. MATHENA, ET AL., Defendants.

Michael Isiah Lawrence, Pro Se Plaintiff.

OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES P. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

By Opinion and Order entered September 8, 2014, I summarily dismissed this prisoner civil rights action because the plaintiff has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). I also found that the submissions received by the court did not state facts demonstrating imminent danger allowing the plaintiff to proceed with the lawsuit under § 1915(g) without prepayment of the filing fees. The plaintiff now moves for reinstatement of the action, arguing that he does not have three strikes and has shown imminent danger. I cannot agree.

As I stated in my Opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has designated the plaintiff as having three strikes preventing him from paying for a federal lawsuit in installments without a showing of imminent danger. See Lawrence v. Johnson, 7:04CV00120 (W.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2004) (civil action dismissed under § 1915(g)), appeal dismissed, No. 04-7126 (4th Cir. Oct. 13, 2004) (dismissed under § 1915(g)) (ECF No. 22). The plaintiff claims that his name was dropped from Case No. 7:04Cv00120, but court records do not so indicate. Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions, the documents before the court do not state facts showing imminent danger of serious physical harm as required to proceed under § 1915(g) without prepaying the full filing fee.[1] Finally, I cannot find cause to reopen this closed case to allow the plaintiff’s new assertions, because the dismissal of the case without prejudice leaves him free to refile his claims in a new and separate civil action if he so desires, subject to the limitations in § 1915(g).

For the reasons stated, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.


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.