UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
December 10, 2012
DARNELL W. MOON, PLAINTIFF,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard W. Roberts United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Vacate the
Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis and Stay These Proceedings [Dkt. #15].*fn1
Because a ruling on the motion potentially would dispose of
this case, in its October 25, 2012 Order, the Court advised the
plaintiff, among other things, of his obligation to file an opposition
or other response to the motion. Further, the Order expressly warned
the plaintiff that, if he failed to file his opposition by November
26, 2012, the Court would treat the motion as conceded. To date, the
plaintiff neither has filed an opposition nor requested additional
time to do so. The Court will treat the defendant's motion as
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), unless a prisoner "is under imminent danger of serious physical injury," he may not proceed in forma pauperis if while incarcerated he has filed at least three prior cases that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has accumulated the requisite three strikes. Moon v. Mo. Div. of Emp't Sec., No. 09-4140, 2009 WL 3261920, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 5, 2009) (denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing claims without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(g)); see Moon v. Nat'l Asset Recovery Servs., No. 09-1129 (E.D. Mo. July 28, 2009) (dismissing as frivolous); Moon v. United States, No. 09-0006 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 3, 2009) (same); Moon v. Nat'l Asset Recovery Servs., No. 09-0117 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2009) (same). The plaintiff does not demonstrate that he is now facing an imminent danger of serious physical injury, and therefore he does not fall within the sole exception to the "three strikes" provision of the PLRA. Accordingly, the Court will revoke the plaintiff's in forma pauperis status, vacate the order granting his in forma pauperis application, bar the plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in any future civil action filed in this district, and dismiss this action without prejudice to refiling upon payment in full of the $350.00 filing fee.
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.