United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE [#91], REVOKING IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND DISMISSING ACTION
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Judge.
7, 2013, this Court granted Plaintiff's Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis, concluding that his
claims fell within the “imminent danger”
exception to the three strikes provision set forth in 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). On October 13, 2016, the Court entered
an Order for Plaintiff to Show Cause Why In Forma
Pauperis Status Should Not Be Revoked and Case
Dismissed. The Court's recent review of the record,
including Plaintiff's status as a prolific filer of
frivolous actions, as well as his apparent mental health
disorders, suggested that the original grant of pauper status
was erroneous and Plaintiff should not have been allowed to
proceed under the imminent danger exception.
filed a Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause on
November 22, 2016. The Government filed a Response to
Plaintiff's Response to the Order to Show Cause on
December 16, 2016. Plaintiff has also brought a Motion to
Recuse, which was filed on November 23, 2016. For the reasons
that follow, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to
Recuse, will revoke Plaintiff's in forma
pauperis status and will dismiss this action without
Motion to Recuse
initial matter, Plaintiff has moved to recuse the
undersigned. Disqualification under either 28 U.S.C. §
455 or § 144 must be predicated “upon
extrajudicial conduct rather than on judicial conduct,
” and upon “a personal bias as distinguished from
judicial one, arising out of the judge's background and
association and not from the judge's view of the
law.” Id. at 1303-04 (quotations and citations
omitted). Section 455 provides that a judge must disqualify
himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. §
455(a). It is well-settled that adverse rulings during the
course of proceedings are not themselves sufficient to
establish bias or prejudice which will disqualify the
presiding judge. See Knapp v. Kinsey, 232 F.2d 458,
466 (6th Cir. 1956); see also City of Cleveland v.
Krupansky, 619 F.2d 576, 578 (6th Cir. 1980).
asserts that some of the Defendants in this matter told him
that the Michigan Department of Corrections paid the
undersigned “$100, 000.00 to find a reason to dismiss
[the] case[.]” Pg ID 1618. Plaintiff's fantastical
and delusional accusations are completely false and have no
merit. It is evident from a review of Plaintiff's Motion
to Recuse that he is dissatisfied with this Court's
decision to revisit the grant of pauper status in this
matter. Disagreement with the decision of the Court is not a
proper basis upon which to grant a motion for recusal.
See Knapp, 232 F.2d at 466; see also
Krupansky, 619 F.2d at 578. The Court will deny
Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse.
Revocation of In Forma Pauperis Status
order to proceed under the imminent danger exception under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff was required to allege that
the threat or prison condition is “real and
proximate” and that the danger of serious physical
injury exists at the time the complaint is filed.
Vandiver v. Vasbinder, 416 F. App'x 560, 562
(6th Cir. 2011). This Court granted Plaintiff in forma
pauperis status based on Plaintiff's allegation that
Defendant Hudson had called Plaintiff a “snitch,
” and he had been involved in a physical altercation
with another inmate as a result. However, the imminent danger
exception is inapplicable for assertions of past danger.
See Pointer v. Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369, 371 n.1 (6th
Cir. 2007); Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App'x 796,
797-98 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Ciarpaglini v. Saini,
352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003); Abdul-Akbar v.
McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 313 (3d Cir. 2001).
the record reveals that Plaintiff suffers from several mental
health disorders, which explains the fantastical and
delusional nature of Plaintiff's allegations to this
Court. The record further shows that Plaintiff does not
comprehend that he suffers from disorders of the mind and
frequently refuses medication. Simply put, Plaintiff's
allegations of imminent danger were, and continue to be,
delusional and not based in reality.
Court has the authority to deny a prisoner leave to proceed
in forma pauperis when the prisoner's claims of
imminent danger are “conclusory or ridiculous” or
are “clearly baseless” (i.e. are fantastic or
delusional and rise to the level of ‘irrational or
wholly incredible).'” Rittner, 290 F.
App'x at 798. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate to this
Court that he was entitled to proceed under the imminent
danger exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), therefore
the Court will revoke his in forma pauperis status
and dismiss this action. See McLeod v. Jones, No.
4:15-cv-188, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173634, *9 (N.D. Fla.
Sept. 17, 2015) (courts are permitted to “revoke
previously granted in forma pauperis status if it
later becomes evident that the original IFP status should not
have been granted.”)
reasons articulated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse
[#91] is DENIED. Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis
status is HEREBY REVOKED. This ...