The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:
U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Incarcerated pro se plaintiff Daniel Miller ("Plaintiff")*fn1
filed a Complaint in this Court on August 20, 2012
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") against the County of
Nassau, Michael Sposato, Sheriff of Nassau County, and Corrections
Officers Saeed and Karol, accompanied by an application to proceed in
forma pauperis and an Order to Show Cause seeking, inter alia, a
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order allowing the
Plaintiff to have daily law library access.
On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. In addition to the defendants named in the original Complaint, Plaintiff has named two additional defendants, Sergeant Caminetti and Corporal MacDevitt. Like the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint complains that Plaintiff is denied meaningful access to the jail law library. More specifically, Plaintiff complains that inmates are allowed only one (1) hour per week of library time and that the materials available in the library are inadequate because volumes are missing and are out-of-date.
Because Plaintiff has had "three strikes" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and has not alleged that he is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury," his application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Plaintiff is directed to pay the $350.00 filing fee within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, and a failure to do so will lead to the dismissal of this action without further notice and judgment shall enter.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars prisoners from proceeding in forma pauperis after three or more previous claims have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Section 1915(g), often referred to as the "three strikes" rule, provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . 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 injury.
Here, Plaintiff has at least five disqualifying actions.*fn2 See Miller v. County of Nassau, 467 F. Supp. 2d 308 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Miller v. Carpinello, 06--CV--12940 (LAP), 2007 WL 4207282 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007) (dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Crosby v. Walsh, 03--CV--4897(ARR) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2005) (dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted); Miller v. County of Nassau, 00-CV-6124 (JS)(WDW) (dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Miller v. Menifee, ...