Peters v. Patrick

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: March 28, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00673
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 28, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

MICHAEL G. PETERS, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-00673 § RYAN PATRICK, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER Michael G. Peters is an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. He filed suit under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights. The case was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g). Peters now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, a prisoner may not file an action without prepayment of the filing fee barring a show of imminent danger if he has, on three or more prior occasions, filed a prisoner action in federal district court or an appeal in a federal court of appeals which was dismissed as frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996). Peters had at least thirteen such dismissals before filing his notice of appeal in this case, and is no longer allowed to proceed without prepayment of fees. See Peters v. Abbot, No. 4:21-cv-3731 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2021); Peters v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, No. 4:21-cv-3039 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2021); Peters v. TDCJ, No. 4:21-cv-2447 (S.D. Tex. July 29, 2021); Peters v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, No. 3:21-cv-14 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2021); Peters v. Texas Medical Board, 4:15-cv-3021 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2015); Peters v. Rollins, 4:15-cv-3036 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2015); Peters v. Valigura, 4:15-cv-3023 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2015); Peters v. Duckworth, 4:15-cv-3024 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2015); Peters v. Harrison, 4:15- 1 / 2 cv-3037 (S.D. Tex. Oct, 19, 2015); Peters v. BB&T Bank, No. 4:15-cv-3035 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2015); Peters v. Dreyer, 4:15-cv-2899 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2015); Peters v. Dreyer, 4:15-cv-2900 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2015); Peters v. Gilbert, 4:15-cv-2762 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2015). Peters’s allegations do not plead any facts showing that he is in any immediate danger which would warrant waiver of the fee requirement. See Choyce v. Dominguez, 160 F.3d 1068, 1071 (Sth Cir. 1998); Banos v. O Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (Sth Cir. 1998). In light of the pleadings and his litigation history, Peters fails to show that he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. His motion, (Doc. # 8), is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED on March 28, 2022, at Houston, Texas.

United States District Judge

2/2