In Re: M. Washington v.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedJune 19, 1997
Docket97-731
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: M. Washington v. (In Re: M. Washington v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: M. Washington v., (10th Cir. 1997).

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH SEP 8 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK FISHER Clerk FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

MICHAEL C. WASHINGTON, No. 97-731

Petitioner.

ORDER Filed September 8, 1997

Before BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Michael C. Washington has filed for a writ in the nature of

mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. He also seeks leave of this

court to proceed with his petition without the prepayment of fees, and has

submitted the necessary forms and declarations. Because we conclude that

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prevents petitioner from proceeding in forma pauperis in this

proceeding, we deny petitioner leave to proceed without prepayment of fees.

“Section 1915(g) generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding in forma

pauperis in civil actions if three or more of his prior suits have been dismissed as

frivolous or malicious, or for failure to state a claim.” Green v. Nottingham,

90 F.3d 415, 418 (10th Cir. 1996). As in Green, petitioner here has filed three or more such actions. See Washington v. Loving, No. 96-6192, 1997 WL 111259, at

**2 (10th Cir. March 13, 1997) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of

petitioner’s complaint as “legally meritless and factually baseless”); Washington

v. Loving, No 94-6466, 1995 WL 421131, at **1 (10th Cir. July 18, 1995)

(commenting that petitioner had filed four frivolous actions in the Western

District of Oklahoma and sixteen frivolous actions in the Eastern District of

Oklahoma). Petitioner’s history satisfies the requirements of § 1915(g).

In Green this court concluded that petitions for mandamus qualify as “civil

actions” under § 1915(g). See 90 F.3d at 418. Accordingly, petitioner cannot file

this petition without prepayment of costs or fees. Further, we direct the clerk of

this court not to accept from petitioner any future filings of extraordinary writs in

noncriminal matters or appeals of judgment in civil actions or proceedings unless

he first pays the applicable filing fees, except in those instances that petitioner’s

filings claim that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner may

resubmit his petition by paying the required filing fee, see 10th Cir. R. 21.1.

Entered for the Court PATRICK FISHER, Clerk

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: M. Washington v., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-m-washington-v-ca10-1997.