Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190207_0000370.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-23 14:30:16
Document Index: 204724860

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

FindACase™ | Smart v. Global Telecommunications, Inc.
Smart v. Global Telecommunications, Inc.
GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. SALAHUDDIN F. SMART, Plaintiff,
RESORTS CASINO & HOTEL, et al., Defendants. SALAHUDDIN F. SMART, Plaintiff,
TROPICANA CASINO AND HOTEL, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff Salahuddin F. Smart is presently confined at the Camden County Department of Corrections Facility, in Camden, New Jersey. He seeks to bring the following civil actions, case numbers 18-17684, 18-14849, and 18-14844 in forma pauperis, [1] without prepayment of fees or security, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Act”), which amends 28 U.S.C. § 1915, establishes certain financial requirements for prisoners who are attempting to bring a civil action in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff may not have known when he submitted his complaints that he must pay the filing fee, and that even if the full filing fee, or any part of it, has been paid, the Court must dismiss the case if it finds that the action is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If the Court dismisses the case for any of these reasons, the Act does not permit the prisoner to get his filing fee back.
In each of these actions, Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis but has failed to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his respective complaints. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). In civil actions 18-14849 and 18-14844, Plaintiff contends or implies that jail officials refused to provide him with a certified account statement.
Typically, at this time, the Court would give Plaintiff an opportunity to submit complete applications to proceed in forma pauperis, or set forth in an affidavit the dates, times, and 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, 2009). For the reasons that follow, however, the Court will not give Plaintiff the opportunity to submit another application to proceed in forma pauperis in any of these cases.
As discussed in one of this Court's Opinions in another of Plaintiff's cases, Plaintiff has filed, and the Court has dismissed, [2] at least three earlier actions in this District as frivolous or for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Smart v. Queen Anne's Cty., No. 18-17434, 2019 WL 140011, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2019)(citing Smart v. Admin. Office of the Courts, No. 14-4303, 2016 WL 632230, at *8 (D.N.J. Feb. 17, 2016) (“Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).”), aff'd sub nom., 672 Fed.Appx. 182 (3d Cir. 2017); Smart v. McLivaine, No. 14-4375, 2014 WL 6386768, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2014)(“[T]he complaint will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”); Smart v. Aramark Inc., No. 14-3007, 2014 WL 2215972, at *3 (D.N.J. May 29, 2014) (“Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed with prejudice, and this dismissal will be a “strike” under the “three-strikes” rule.”), aff'd, 618 Fed.Appx. 728, 728 (3d Cir. 2015)).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is a litigant with three strikes under § 1915(g). Thus, § 1915(g) precludes him from proceeding in forma pauperis in these three cases currently before the Court, unless he alleges facts to show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The three complaints before the Court do not allege that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. First, in Smart v. Global Telecommunications, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-17684, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants interfered with his ability to represent himself by limiting and monitoring his phone calls, and for illegally seizing $10.00 from his account through hidden fees.
In Smart v. Resorts Casino & Hotel, Civil Action No. 18-14849, Plaintiff alleges that security or police officers, at the behest of Defendant Resorts Casino, illegally seized Plaintiff when they advised him that he was evicted from the casino for intoxication. Plaintiff also alleges that Resorts Casino coerced and retaliated against him by continuing to ban him from the premises unless he signed a waiver of suit. Finally, in Smart v. Tropicana Casino and Hotel, Civil Action No. 18-14844, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Tropicana Casino and Hotel and its security officers harassed, seized, and evicted Plaintiff, after Plaintiff had a “personal conversation” with a female security staff member.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Consequently, because the complaints in these matters do not contain allegations suggesting that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, he is not excused from the &sect; 1915(g) restrictions. Thus, the Court will not permit Plaintiff to proceed in ...