Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Daniel Miller, Long Island Office v. County of Nassau
September 21, 2012
DANIEL MILLER, LONG ISLAND OFFICE PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF NASSAU, MICHAEL SPOSATO, SHERIFF, CORP. JOHN DOE, AND C/O JOHN DOE #1-#4, DEFENDANTS.
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 September 10,
2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") against the County
of Nassau, Michael Sposato, Sheriff of Nassau County, a "John Doe"
corporal and four "John Doe" corrections officers accompanied by an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff complains
generally about the lack of procedures to protect an inmate's personal
property at the Nassau County Jail and alleges that, on July 12, 2012,
Plaintiff's property (valued at approximately $3,600) was lost while
he was admitted to the Nassau University Medical Center.
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, 01-CV-8414 ...
Buy This Entire Record For