Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00024/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00024-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

WALLACE A. GARDNER, ADC # 110784 PLAINTIFF

v. 5:16CV00024-DPM-JJV

CHRISTOPHER BUDNIK, Deputy Warden, 

Varner Unit; et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On March 4, 2016, Irevoked Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (‘IFP’) status after finding he was

not in imminent danger of serious harm. (Doc. No. 30.) Now, he has asked me to reconsider that

ruling. (Doc. No. 36.) After review of Plaintiff’s arguments, I decline to reverse my decision. 

In reachingmy decision to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status, Irelied on medical records produced

by Defendants. These records indicated Plaintiff had made no medical complaints related to paint

fumes since October 16, 2015 - several months before this action was filed.1(Doc. No. 21-2 at 2-7.) 

In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues he voiced complaints of headaches well after that

date - notably on November 6, 2015, and again on January 27, 2016. (Doc. No. 36 at 1.) First, it is

unclear whether these headaches are related to his alleged exposure to paint fumes. Defendants state

Plaintiff is not currently being treated for any health issues associated with exposure. (Doc. No. 21

at 5.) Additionally, his medical records indicate Plaintiff’s sick calls have been intermittent rather

than constant and, since his alleged exposure, he has frequently failed to raise any medical

complaints whatsoever during staff rounds. (Doc. No. 21-2 at 2-7.) As stated in my previous Order,

this clear lack of medical urgency weighs heavily against Plaintiff’s claim that he was in imminent

danger at the time this suit was filed. 

1This action was filed on January 25, 2016. (Doc. No. 2.)

1

Case 5:16-cv-00024-JJV Document 38 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 2
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2016. 

____________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 5:16-cv-00024-JJV Document 38 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 2