MERCADO v. RAMIREZ

S.D. Indiana

MERCADO v. RAMIREZ

DecidedSeptember 14, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-02179

StatusUnknown

This text of MERCADO v. RAMIREZ (MERCADO v. RAMIREZ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MERCADO v. RAMIREZ, (S.D. Ind. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ANGELITO C. MERCADO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:20-cv-02179-JPH-TAB ) DRAKE MADDIX Officer, ) PRANTHER Deputy, ) BRANDON DECKER, ) ROBERT MITCHELL Officer, ) KYLE YOUNG Officer, ) SCHRADER Officer, ) ) Defendants. )

ENTRY DISCUSSING FILING FEE

Plaintiff, Angelito Mercado has not paid the $400 filing fee prescribed by Congress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). He also appears to have "struck out" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute "prohibits a prisoner from proceeding [in forma pauperis] if, on three or more occasions during his imprisonment, he has 'brought an action… that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005, 1006 (7th Cir. 2010). The "sole statutory exception" is if "the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." Id. Mr. Mercado has not alleged imminent danger, and he has had three prior cases dismissed for failure to state a claim. 1) Mercado v. Bartholomew County Sheriffs Dept., et al, No. 1:17-cv- 00323-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 20177) (dismissing action for failure to state a claim); 2) Mercado v. Columbus Police Dept., et al., No. 1:17-cv-00981-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2017) (dismissing action for failure to statea claim); 3) Mercado v. Columbus Police Dept., et al., No. 1:177-cv-00910-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind. Apr. 26, 20177) (dismissing action for failure to state a claim) With respect to Mr. Mercado's letter requesting that the Court "remove the cost of the filing fee from his trust account," dkt. 2, the statutory language does not contemplate such a payment of the full feels. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Mr. Mercado shall have through October 12, 2020 to pay the $400 filing fee to the clerk of the district court. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. SO ORDERED. Date: 9/14/2020 Sjamu Patrick hawlove James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: ANGELITO C. MERCADO BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL 943 2nd Street Columbus, IN 47201

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ANGELITO C. MERCADO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:20-cv-02179-JPH-TAB ) DRAKE MADDIX Officer, ) PRANTHER Deputy, ) BRANDON DECKER, ) ROBERT MITCHELL Officer, ) KYLE YOUNG Officer, ) SCHRADER Officer, ) ) Defendants. )

ENTRY DISCUSSING FILING FEE

Plaintiff, Angelito Mercado has not paid the $400 filing fee prescribed by Congress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). He also appears to have "struck out" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute "prohibits a prisoner from proceeding [in forma pauperis] if, on three or more occasions during his imprisonment, he has 'brought an action… that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005, 1006 (7th Cir. 2010). The "sole statutory exception" is if "the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." Id. Mr. Mercado has not alleged imminent danger, and he has had three prior cases dismissed for failure to state a claim. 1) Mercado v. Bartholomew County Sheriffs Dept., et al, No. 1:17-cv- 00323-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 20177) (dismissing action for failure to state a claim); 2) Mercado v. Columbus Police Dept., et al., No. 1:17-cv-00981-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2017) (dismissing action for failure to statea claim); 3) Mercado v. Columbus Police Dept., et al., No. 1:177-cv-00910-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind. Apr. 26, 20177) (dismissing action for failure to state a claim) With respect to Mr. Mercado's letter requesting that the Court "remove the cost of the filing fee from his trust account," dkt. 2, the statutory language does not contemplate such a payment of the full feels. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Mr. Mercado shall have through October 12, 2020 to pay the $400 filing fee to the clerk of the district court. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. SO ORDERED. Date: 9/14/2020 Sjamu Patrick hawlove James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: ANGELITO C. MERCADO BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL 943 2nd Street Columbus, IN 47201

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

MERCADO v. RAMIREZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercado-v-ramirez-insd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack