Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02097/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02097-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JWB

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Duncan J. McNeil, III,

Petitioner, 

vs.

United States of America, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2097-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner, a county jail prisoner in the State of Washington, brought an action seeking

to enforce judgments entered in states other than Arizona. By Order and Judgment filed

August 26, 2005 (Doc. ## 6-7), this Court dismissed Petitioner’s mandamus action because

he failed to pre-pay the $250.00 civil action filing fee as a litigant who has three strikes under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Presently pending is Petitioner’s “Ex Parte Motion in Support of

Notice of Appeal ” (Doc. # 13). The Court will deny the motion. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis and has submitted a certified inmate

trust account statement as well as evidence of his disability. Petitioner's request will be

denied. As articulated previously, Petitioner must prepay the $250.00 filing fee for this

action as a consequence of obtaining three strikes pursuant to §1915(g). Petitioner's action

does not fall within the purview of §1915(g)'s exception for allegations of threats of

imminent physical injury. Accordingly, Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis

will be denied.

///

Case 2:05-cv-02097-DGC--ECV Document 17 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

II. Request for Electronic Filing Access to Court

Next, Petitioner requests electronic filing access to the Court. Petitioner, as an

incarcerated individual, is not required to electronically file his documents. Further,

Petitioner's case has been closed, eliminating the need to allow Petitioner to electronically

file any pleadings. To the extent that Petitioner requests free copies of all electronic

documents in the Court's file, Petitioner's request will be denied.

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(c)(1).

However, that statute does not authorize the appointment of counsel. Moreover, Petitioner

has not articulated a basis upon which he is entitled to the appointment of counsel.

Petitioner's motion will be denied.

IV. Motion for Copies, Record, and for Service of the Pleadings

Finally, Petitioner requests that the Court prepare the record and serve it on the

Respondents. Petitioner's case is closed. The Complaint and record will not be served on

Respondents. Petitioner has appealed this Court's decision and Respondents have been

notified. As a result, it is unnecessary to serve additional documents on Respondents.

Petitioner's request will be denied.

In accordance with the foregoing,

 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion (Doc. # 13) is DENIED. 

DATED this 10th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02097-DGC--ECV Document 17 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 2