Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TINSLEY v. HENNESSEY

United States District Court, Northern District of California


February 3, 2003

RUSSELL A. TINSLEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL HENNESSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maxine M. Chesney, United States District Judge.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, has filed this pro se civil action regarding his confinement. He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), which was enacted on April 26, 1996, provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 "if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Prior to the filing of the instant action, plaintiff, while a prisoner, filed more than three actions or appeals that were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e. g., Tinsley v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 00-16066 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2000); Tinsley v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 00-16202 (9th Cir. July 21, 2000); Tinsley v. City and County of San Francisco District Attorney, No. 02-1988 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2002); Tinsley v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 01-2102 MMC (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2002); Tinsley v. Nocetti, No. 01-2027 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal July 2, 2001); Tinsley v. Hennessey, No. 00-2068 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2000); Tinsley v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 00-1278 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2000); Tinsley v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., No. 00-1136 MMC (PR) (Aug. 1, 2000); Tinsley v. Heffernon, No. 96-2813 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 1996); Tinsley v. Heffernon, No. 96-308 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 1996).

Because plaintiff has suffered three or more such prior dismissals and is not under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's bringing it in a complaint as to which plaintiff pays the filing fee. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). No fee is due with respect to the instant complaint.

All pending motions are terminated and the Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the instant action is hearby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's bringing it in a complaint as to which plaintiff pays the filing fee.

All pending motions are TERMINATED.

20030203

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.