Source: http://wv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190425_0000408.SWV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-29 01:48:28
Document Index: 481971147

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 552', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1997']

FindACase™ | Young v. Sessions
JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. Attorney General,[1] STEPHEN M. HORN, U.S. Attorney, and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants.
Pending before the court is the plaintiff, Timothy Young's (hereinafter “Young”), Amended Complaint [ECF Nos. 1 and 7] and his Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 30]. Young also filed numerous exhibits and appendices in support of his Amended Complaint [ECF Nos. 18, 22, 28 and 29]. Young has not paid the applicable $400 filing fee or filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (also known as an Application to Proceed in forma pauperis). This matter is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. For reasons appearing to the court, the referral of this matter to the Magistrate Judge is WITHDRAWN.
This Complaint is subject to the filing fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) and (g). See, e.g., In re Kissi, 652 F.3d 39, 41 (D.D.C. 2011). The PLRA provides that prisoners who repeatedly file meritless lawsuits lose the right to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs.
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action under this section [relating to proceedings in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action . . . 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); see also Ashley v. E. Dilworth, CO-1, 147 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 1998) (“Section 1915(g) denies the installment payment method to those prisoners who have had three previous cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (“three strikes”).”). Consequently, “the proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the three strikes provision of § 1915(g). The prisoner cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status. He must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit.” Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Finley v. Doe, No. 5:07-cv-00807, 2008 WL 2645472 (S.D. W.Va. June 30, 2008) (Johnston, J.).
II. Procedural History and Allegations in Amended Complaint.
Young is a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Administrative Maximum Facility located in Florence, Colorado (“ADX Florence”). In 2015, while incarcerated at ADX Florence, Young filed a previous civil action in this United States District Court, against the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and Matthew Mellady, its Mid-Atlantic Regional Counsel, asserting that he was wrongfully refused certain medical records and information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). See Young v. Mellady, No. 5:15-cv-14151 (S.D. W.Va.) (Berger, J.). Stephen M. Horn, then an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, represented the defendants in that matter, which was ultimately dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because, while incarcerated, Young has filed at least three prior civil actions in federal courts which have been dismissed as being frivolous or malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In fact, Young has filed numerous civil actions in various federal courts around the United States that have been dismissed on these bases.
The Honorable Irene C. Berger, the presiding District Judge in Young v. Mellady, found:
The Plaintiff has an apparent strategy of filing suits in district courts across the country in an effort to evade § 1915(g). Numerous courts have issued opinions informing Mr. Young that he is not permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., In re Young, 382 Fed.Appx. 148, 149 (3d Cir. 2010) (applying 1915(g) and noting that “Young has worn out his welcome elsewhere); Young v. United States, 88 Fed.Cl. 283, 291 (2009) (counting over sixty suits initiated by the Plaintiff and stating that “Mr. Young has made himself an example of the type of plaintiff Congress was trying to address when it enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act.”); Young v. United States, No. 14-CV-11930, 2014 WL 2533834, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 5, 2014) (noting that the Plaintiff “was advised by federal district judges on at least three separate occasions that he was precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis . . . because of these prior dismissals.”); Young v. United States, No. 2:13-CV-00833, 2013 WL 6710775, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 18, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:13-CV-00833, 2014 WL 2515586 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2014); Young v. United States, No. 3:14-CV-0420-B, 2014 WL 1660689, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2014).
Mem. Op. and Order, Young v. Mellady, No. 5:15-cv-14151, ECF No. 62 (S.D. W.Va. Sept. 2, 2016) (Berger, J.)
Judge Berger's Memorandum Opinion and Order further acknowledged that the following matters filed by Young, while incarcerated, have been dismissed as being frivolous and/or malicious: Young v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:08-cv-00182 (D. Colo.); Young v. United States, 1:08-cv-00226 (D. Colo.); and Young v. No. Defendants Named, No. 1:08-cv-00413 (D. Colo.). Judge Berger further found that the Complaint in Young v. Mellady was also frivolous and failed to demonstrate that Young was under imminent danger in order to overcome the section 1915(g) prohibition.
In the instant matter, Young continues to pursue his frivolous claim that he has been wrongfully denied medical records pertaining to blood tests results for Hepatitis C by the BOP and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) attorneys who represent them, and further asserts that he is being wrongfully denied medical treatment at ADX Florence. Young attempts to overcome the section 1915(g) bar to proceeding without paying the $400 filing fee, in full, by contending that “his life is in danger.” In his excessively-lengthy Amended Complaint, he further contends that section 1915(g) and the PLRA exhaustion requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) are unconstitutional, and he further complains about his medical treatment and various other conditions of confinement at ADX Florence over which this Court has no jurisdiction.