United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
CLIFFORD J. SCHUETT, Plaintiff,
MR. WILSON, ET AL., Defendants.
E. Payne Senior United States District Judge
J. Schuett, a federal inmate, submitted this civil action and
applied to proceed in forma pauperis. Schuett
labeled his action, "IMMINENT DANGER COMPLAINT, "
flagging to the Court that he likely has three strikes under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action [in
forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical inj ury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order
entered on March 9, 2017, the Court directed Schuett to
"identify each prior action or appeal that was dismissed
as frivolous or for failure to state a claim." (ECF No.
2, at 2.) Moreover, the Court noted that Schuett's
"submissions indicate that he has suffered from these
many health conditions for a lengthy period of time and that
he is notxunder imminent danger of serious
physical injury, ' 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), from these
chronic conditions." (Id.) The Court also
directed Schuett "to identify each prior action that he
filed from 2010 to the present challenging his medical care
for the above-listed medical conditions. Schuett must provide
the court in which each action was filed. Additionally,
Schuett must also provide a brief summary of the ruling in
each action." (Id. at 2-3.)
Response to the March 9, 2017 Memorandum Order, Schuett
wholly failed to comply with the Court's directives. On
his in forma pauperis affidavit, Schuett indicated
that he had one case that was dismissed as frivolous or
failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 3, at 2.) However, from
the most cursory search, the Court discerns that Schuett has
many cases that have been dismissed as frivolous or for
failure to state a claim that he failed to identify. See
Schuett v. Governor, State of Haw., No. 14-00374, 2014
WL 5781409, at *l-2 (D. Haw. Nov. 6, 2014) (listing cases
that are strikes under § 1915(g)).
also failed to identify any cases in which he has challenged
his medical care for the conditions he outlines in his
complaint. Instead, his in forma pauperis affidavit
was accompanied by "PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO THE
COURT'S ORDER, " that rants about his medical
conditions and then "apologizes to the Court about his
outbursts." (ECF No. 4, at 4 (capitalization and
interim, failing to receive the result he desired in the
instant action, Schuett filed a new action and attempted to
litigate the new action instead of complying with the
directives of the Court. See Schuett v. Wilson,
3:17CV174 (E.D. Va.).
though Schuett failed to comply with the Court's
directives, the Court provided Schuett a second opportunity
to do so. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on April
24, 2017, the Court instructed Schuett that, in order to be
granted in forma pauperis status, Schuett must
comply with the Court's directives. Accordingly, the
it is ORDERED that Schuett is directed to submit one document
that contains the following information:
1. In the first section, Schuett must identify each prior
action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous or for
failure to state a claim.
2. As previously outlined, in an effort to get around the bar
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Schuett suggests that he is a
parapalegic in a wheelchair, has a prior shoulder injury from
2 015 which causes him trouble propelling his wheelchair, but
Defendants are forcing him to push his own chair, has
cataracts causing him to be blind in one eye, and has had a
urinary tract infection and has had to self-catheterize since
before he was transferred to FCI Petersburg in January 2017.
(Compl. 2-3.) Schuett admits that he has received medical
care since his transfer, but nevertheless believes he has
been placed in "imminent danger" by the actions of
Schuett's submissions indicate that he has suffered from
these many health conditions for a lengthy period of time and
that he is not "under imminent danger of serious
physical injury, " 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), from these
chronic conditions. In the second section of the document
Schuett submits, he is also directed to identify each prior
action that he filed from 2010 to the present challenging his
medical care for the above-listed medical conditions. Schuett
must provide the court in which each action was filed.
Additionally, Schuett must also provide a brief summary of
the ruling in each action.
3. At the end of the document, Schuett must certify under
penalty of perjury that the information contained in the
document is correct. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1932
(permitting revocation of earned good time credit on the
Court's own motion for claims that are malicious, are
filed for the purpose of harassing the defendants, or if the
"claimant testifies falsely otherwise knowingly presents
false evidence or information to the court").
4. Failure to comply with the above directives within the
fifteen (15) day time limit will result in ...