JACKSON v. GRADEL
This text of JACKSON v. GRADEL (JACKSON v. GRADEL) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEREK WAYNE JACKSON, : Plaintiff, : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-CV-4495 : JOHN GRADEL, et al., : Defendants. :
ORDER This 4th day of September, 2024, upon consideration of Derek Wayne Jackson’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement (ECF No. 4), pro se Complaint (ECF No. 2), and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 3), it is ORDERED that: 1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 2. Derek Wayne Jackson, #GQ-3151, shall pay the full filing fee of $350 in installments, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), regardless of the outcome of this case. The Court directs the Superintendent of SCI Mahanoy or other appropriate official to assess an initial filing fee of 20% of the greater of (a) the average monthly deposits to Jackson’s inmate account; or (b) the average monthly balance in Jackson’s inmate account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of this case. The Superintendent or other appropriate official shall calculate, collect, and forward the initial payment assessed pursuant to this Order to the Court with a reference to the docket number for this case. In each succeeding month when the amount in Jackson’s inmate trust fund account exceeds $10.00, the Superintendent or other appropriate official shall forward payments to the Clerk of Court equaling 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to Jackson’s inmate account until the fees are paid. Each payment shall refer to the docket number for this case. 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the Superintendent of SCI Mahanoy.
4. The Complaint is DEEMED filed. 5. Jackson’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The dismissal is without prejudice to Jackson challenging his convictions and sentence in his pending habeas case and without prejudice to Jackson filing a new case seeking damages only in the event his underlying convictions are first reversed, vacated, or otherwise invalidated. 6. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 7. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gerald Austin McHugh GERALD A. MCHUGH, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
JACKSON v. GRADEL, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-gradel-paed-2024.