United States District Court, N.D. New York
RANDOLPH Plaintiff, pro se Mid-State Correctional Facility.
DECISION AND ORDER
K. Sannes United States District Judge.
Clerk has sent to the Court for review a pro se civil rights
Complaint filed by plaintiff Ryan Randolph
("Plaintiff") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
("Section 1983"). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.").
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Mid-State
Correctional Facility ("Mid-State C.F."), has not
paid the filing fee required for this action and seeks to
proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2 ("IFP
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's IFP Application is
denied and this action is sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) ("Section 1915(g)"), unless,
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and
Order, Plaintiff pays the statutory filing fee of four
hundred dollars ($400) in full.
plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
must determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated
sufficient economic need to proceed without prepaying, in
full, the Court's filing fee of four hundred dollars
($400). The Court must also determine whether the
"three strikes" provision of Section 1915(g) bars
the plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis and without
prepayment of the filing fee. More specifically, Section
1915(g) provides as follows:
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). If the plaintiff is indigent and
not barred by Section 1915(g), the Court must also consider
whether the causes of action stated in the complaint are,
inter alia, frivolous or malicious, or if they fail
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. §
case, Plaintiff has demonstrated economic need and has filed
the inmate authorization form required in the Northern
District of New York. See Dkt. Nos. 2, 3. Therefore,
the Court must now determine whether the "three
strikes" provision bars Plaintiff from proceeding in
Determination of Strikes
reviewed Plaintiff's litigation history on the Federal
Judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records
("PACER") Service, the Court has determined that
Plaintiff is a frequent litigator in the federal courts and
is well aware of the "three strikes"
rule. The three strikes rule set forth in
Section 1915(g) has been enforced against Plaintiff in the
Southern District of New York beginning in July 2012 and in
this District beginning in 2014. See Randolph v. Clinton
Cnty. Facility, No. 1:12-CV-1851, Order to Show Cause
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2012), Bar Order (S.D.N.Y. July 11,
2012); Randolph v. Clinton Corr.
Facility, No. 9:14-CV-0121 (DNH/RFT), Decision &
Order (N.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 13, 2014); Randolph v. N.Y.
State Corr., et al., No. 9:15-CV-1413 (LEK/TWD),
Decision and Order (N.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 29, 2015);
Randolph v. New York State Corrs., No. 9:18-CV-0934
(TJM/CFH), Decision and Order (N.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 1, 2018);
and Randolph v. New York State Dep't of Corr.,
No. 9:19- CV-180 (DNH/CFH), Decision and Order (N.D.N.Y.
filed March 13, 2019).
Second Circuit has held that a district court may rely on the
relevant docket sheets to determine whether the three strikes
limitation on in forma pauperis proceedings applies if they
indicate with sufficient clarity that the prior suits were
dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious,
or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d
18, 23-24 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Chavis v.
Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2010) (A plaintiff
incurs a second strike when, after filing a complaint that is
dismissed on one of the grounds listed in 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g), he appeals that dismissal, only to have the appeal
also dismissed on one of the listed grounds.).
reviewing these decisions, as well as the docket sheets for
the actions found to constitute strikes, this Court likewise
finds that Plaintiff ...