United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. Kugler United States District Judge.
is presently confined at the Atlantic County Justice
Facility, in Mays Landing, New Jersey, and filed each of the
following actions from that facility. He seeks or sought to bring
the following civil actions, case numbers 19-13918, 19-14554,
19-16512, and 19-16761 in forma pauperis, without
prepayment of fees or security, asserting claims pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (“PLRA”), which amends 28 U.S.C. §
1915, establishes certain financial requirements for
prisoners who are attempting to bring a civil action in
Court had previously granted Plaintiff's in forma
pauperis applications in case numbers 19-13918 and
19-14554, and Plaintiff has two pending applications to
proceed in forma pauperis in case numbers 19-16512
and 19-16761. In civil action 19-16761, Plaintiff contends
that jail officials refused to provide him with a certified
account statement. At this time, the Court would typically
consider the pending in forma pauperis applications
and give Plaintiff an opportunity in civil action 19-16761,
to set forth in an affidavit the circumstances in which
officials refused to provide him with a certified trust
account statement. Ross v. Mercer Cty. Correction
Ctr., No. 08-5763, 2009 WL 559798, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 3,
reasons that follow, however, the Court will revoke
Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status in case
numbers 19-13918 and 19-14554 and will not provide Plaintiff
with any further opportunity to proceed in forma
pauperis in any of these cases. The PLRA prohibits a
prisoner from bringing 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 injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Thus, if a prisoner has three or more dismissals under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e), he cannot proceed unless he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he
files the complaint. See Goodson v. Kardashian, 413
Fed.Appx. 417, 419 n.2 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing
Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir.
Honorable Renée M. Bumb, U.S.D.J., held in an Opinion
denying Plaintiff in forma pauperis status
in a previous matter:
Plaintiff appears to have at least four strikes under this
provision. Plaintiff acquired the[se] strikes in the
following cases: Rodriguez v. Sandson et al.,
[Docket No. 13-7055 (RMB)] (D.N.J. Dec. 12, 2013) (ECF Nos. 2
and 3) (dismissing case with prejudice based on immunity and
failure to state a claim); Rodriguez v. Sandson et
al., [Docket No. 13-7056 (RMB)] (D.N.J. Dec. 12, 2013)
(ECF Nos. 2 and 3) (dismissing case with prejudice based on
immunity and failure to state a claim); Rodriguez v.
Morse et al., [Docket No. 13-7057 (RMB)] (D.N.J. Dec.
12, 2013) (dismissing case with prejudice based on statute of
limitations, immunity, and failure to state a claim); and
Rodriguez v. DeLury et al., [Docket No. 13-7058]
(dismissing case with prejudice based on immunity). In each
of these cases, the time period for appeal has expired.
Rodriguez v. State of New Jersey, Docket No.
15-6708, at ECF No. 2 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2015).
Plaintiff is a litigant with at least three strikes under
§ 1915(g). Thus, § 1915(g) precludes him from
proceeding in forma pauperis in these four cases,
unless he alleges facts to show that he is in imminent danger
of serious physical injury.
Court has reviewed the complaints in each of these cases and
finds that they do not allege that Plaintiff is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury. Generally speaking,
Plaintiff sues a plethora of state and county entities and
their employees for conspiring to illegally confine him on
more than one occasion. Plaintiff also raises a litany of
claims regarding the conditions at the jail, such as the low
quality of food, dirty ventilation, and inflated prices at
because the complaints do not contain allegations suggesting
that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical
injury, the § 1915(g) restrictions apply to each case.
Thus, the Court will revoke Plaintiff's in forma
pauperis status in case numbers 19-13918 and 19-14554
and will not permit Plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis in these four cases.
Court will direct the Clerk to administratively terminate
these cases. Plaintiff shall have an opportunity to reopen
these actions by paying the $400.00 filing and administrative
fees in each case, within thirty days.
 Plaintiff appears to list his home
address in some of these filings, but the envelopes
accompanying each complaint bears information indicating that