Christ v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 08 September 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 1:22-CV-01084
• Parties: JESUS CHRIST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

JESUS CHRIST, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-01084

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

September 8, 2022

MEMORANDUM

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On July 11, 2022, pro se Plaintiff “Jesus Christ, a Person, GOD, the Eternal Resurrected Spirit, Tenant of Indigenous Land Estate MICHAEL SCOTT SMITH JR.,” with the Franklin County Prison ID No. 21-00356 (“Plaintiff”), initiated this civil rights action by filing a complaint on July 11, 2022, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, “District Council 89 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Members,” Franklin County Prison, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 39th District of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, Franklin County District Attorney, and the Federal Reserve Bank (collectively, “Defendants”).^[1] (Doc. 1). Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Franklin County Prison, located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1, at 2). Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on July 27, 2022. (Doc. 5). On August 1, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show

1

cause as to why the dismissal of Smith's prior actions with prejudice should not be considered strikes against him per the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), or, alternatively, how Plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the instant complaint was filed. (Doc. 6); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As of the day of this Order, Plaintiff has declined to address the applicability of the three strikes rule under the PLRA.

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be DENIED. (Doc. 5).

I. Discussion

The PLRA includes a “three strikes” rule, “which limits a prisoner's ability to proceed [in forma pauperis] if the prisoner abuses the judicial system by filing frivolous actions.” Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The pertinent part of the PLRA provides that:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section 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).

The Third Circuit has clarified the language of the “three strikes” statute, holding that “[i]n order for an action to be ‘brought' under § 1915(g), a litigant's complaint must be filed with the District Court.” Brown v. Sage, 903 F.3d 300, 306 (3d Cir. 2018). Specifically, a complaint is deemed filed once a “litigant has paid the filing fees or [] his motion to proceed IFP has been granted.” Sage, 903 F.3d at 306. The Third Circuit has further described the appropriate standard for evaluating the accrual of “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) as follows:

2

[A] strike under § 1915(g) will accrue only if the entire action or appeal is (1) dismissed explicitly because it is “frivolous,” “malicious,” or “fails to state a claim” or (2) dismissed pursuant to a statutory provision or rule that is limited solely to dismissal for such reasons, including (but not necessarily limited to) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), or Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117, 126 (3d Cir. 2013).

However, a dismissal for failure to state a claim does not constitute a “strike” for the purposes of 1915(g) “unless it is a dismissal with prejudice.” Millhouse v. Heath, 866 F.3d 152, 161 (3d Cir. 2017)). In addition, a “strike” takes effect once an action is dismissed on the grounds enumerated in Byrd, “even if the dismissal is the subject of an appeal.” See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015); see also Parker v. Montgomery Cty. Corr. Facility/Bus. Off. Manager, 870 F.3d 144, 149-50 (3d Cir. 2017). Moreover, the burden rests with the plaintiff to prove his or her entitlement to in forma pauperis status. See Reid v. Ebbert, No. 1:16-CV-01403, 2016 WL 6635931, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2016).

Upon considering the aforementioned legal guideposts, the Court's order to show cause (Doc. 5) identified four prior federal actions, deemed filed by Plaintiff, that were dismissed with prejudice:

1. Smith v. United States, No. 1:21-CV-1422, 2022 WL 245479, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2022) (dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B));

2. Smith v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 1:21-CV-01181, 2022 WL

...