Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171013_0000981.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-18 17:52:38
Document Index: 384047880

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1932']

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June 13, 2017, the Court dismissed without prejudice an "IMMINENT DANGER COMPLAINT, " filed by Clifford J. Schuett, a federal inmate, because he made no attempt to comply with the Court's directives. Schuett v. Wilson, No. 3:17CV102, 2017 WL 2569888, at *l-3 (E.D. Va. June 13, 2017). In the June 13, 2017 Memorandum Opinion, the Court explained as follows:
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 injury.
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 not 'under 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.)
In his 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)) .
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 2015 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 Defendants. (Id.)
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 ...