Free Order Denying IFP - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00531-SLR Document 6 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GBEKE MICHAEL AWALA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civ. No. 07-531-SLR
)
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS, )
CHIEF JUDGE ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, )
JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO, JR., )
CIRCUIT JUDGE KENT A. JORDAN, )
CIRCUIT JUDGE `THOMAS L. AMBRO, )
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTOR, )
CHIEF JUDGE SUE L. ROBINSON, )
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY COLM F.)
CONNOLLY, CLERK MARCIA M. )
WALDON, CLERK DONALD BAKER, )
CLERK WILLIAM K. SUTER, and )
DISTRICT JUDGE GREGORY SLEET, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDLIM ORDER
At Wilmington this l‘l·l·~day of October, 2007;
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
denied, for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff Gbeke Michael Awala ("Awala"), an inmate at the U.S.
Penitentiary Canaan, Waymart, Pennsylvania, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 1.) He is a frequent filer in this district.
2. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Prison Litigation Reform Act

Case 1:07-cv-00531-SLR Document 6 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
("PLRA") provides that a prisoner cannot bring a new civil action or appeal a judgment in
a civil action in forma pauperis if he has three or more times in the past, while
incarcerated, brought a civil action or appeal in federal court that was dismissed as
frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). A case dismissed as frivolous prior to the enactment ofthe PLRA
(i.e., April 26, 1996) is counted when applying the "three strikes rule". Keener v.
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 128 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. 1997). An exception is
made to the "three strikes rule" when the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious
physical injury. Also, a prisoner who is not proceeding in forma pauperis may file a new
civil action or appeal even if that prisoner has three or more dismissals described in 28
U.S.C. 1915(g).
3. According to the records of the Federal Courts, as ofthe year 2005, and while
a prisoner, plaintiff had tiled at least twenty civil actions in various federal courts. g
Awala v. Delta Air Lines, C.A. No. 1:05-CV-2128-JEC (N.D. Ga. Aug. 31, 2005). Since
that time he has filed many more cases. Most of those cases have been dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as follows:
Awala v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corr., No. 05-4899 (3d Cir. Jan. 31, 2007); Awala v.
Regional Office Bureau of Prisons, No. 05-5169 (3d Cir. June 5, 2006); Awala v. Federal
Pub. Defender, No. 05-4341 (3d Cir. Apr. 21, 2006); Awala v. Wachovia Corp., No. 05-
3381 (3d Cir. Dec. 8, 2005); Awala v. People Who Want to Restrict Our First
Amendment Rights, No. 05-3863 (3d Cir. Dec. 8, 2005); Awala v. 8 U.S.C. § 1326, C.A.
No. 06-012-KAJ (D. Del. Mar. 17, 2006); Awala v. Stretton, C.A. No. 05-472-KAJ (D. Del.
2

Case 1:07-cv-00531-SLR Document 6 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 3 of 3
Mar. 3, 2006); Awala v. U.S. Congress, C.A. No. 05-307-KAJ (D. Del. Dec. 15, 2005);
Awala v. Delaware River and Bay Auth. Police Dep’t, C.A. No. 05-97-KAJ (D. Del. Dec.
15, 2005); Awala v. State of New Jersey Dep’t of Corr., C.A. No. Civ.A. 05-2362FLW
(D.N.J. Aug. 23, 2005); and Awala v. Federal Pub. Defender, C.A. No. 05-CV-281-KAJ
(D. Del. Aug. 5, 2005). As a result, plaintiff may not file another civil action in forma
pauperls while incarcerated unless he was in "imminent danger of serious physical
injury" at the time ofthe filing of his complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); AbduI—Akbar v.
l\/lcKe|vie, 239 F.3d 307, 311 (3d Cir. 2001).
4. Plaintiffs complaint does not meet that standard. Rather, the complaint
complains of actions taken by the judiciary, prosecutor, clerks of court and a U.S.
Senator in cases where plaintiff is a party and, more particularly, the case where he was
convicted of a federal crime. Hence, plaintiff is not excused from the restrictions under §
1915(g), he may not proceed in forma pauperls and, therefore, his motion to proceed in
forma pauperls will be denied.
5. Conclusion. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the motion to proceed in
forma pauperls (D.I. 1) is denied. Plaintiff is given thirty (30) days from the date of this
order to pay the $350.00 filing fee. If plaintiff does not pay the filing fee within that time,
the complaint shall be dismissed and the case closed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3

Case 1:07-cv-00531-SLR

Document 6

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00531-SLR

Document 6

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00531-SLR

Document 6

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 3 of 3