UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOE JEAN-LOUIS, Plaintiff, 1:23-CV-8167 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER GOVERNORS STATE OF NEW YORK;

(g) MAYOR NEW YORK CITY, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently held in the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, brings this action pro se. Because he did not submit, with his complaint, $402 in fees to bring this action, the Court understands Plaintiff as seeking to proceed with this action in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 Plaintiff is barred, however, under the “three- strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),

(g), from filing any new federal civil action IFP while he is a prisoner. See Jean-Louis v. Mayor City of New York, ECF 1:23-CV-4286, 2 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2023) (recognizing Plaintiff as barred under Section 1915(g) and listing Plaintiff’s “strikes”); Jean-Louis v. Onafer Nuclear Power Plant, No. 2:12-CV-1071 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) (same). Section 1915(g) provides that: [i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action [IFP] . . . 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

1 The court received a letter (ECF 2) after it received the complaint. The Court construes the letter as a supplement to the complaint. 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.

(g). Although Plaintiff has filed this new federal civil action seeking IFP status, his complaint does not show that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.2 Instead, Plaintiff asserts that the defendants are negligent “for not building underground nuclear fall-out shelters at elementary schools in [New York City] and for not conducting mock civil defense emergency evacuation disaster drills.” (ECF 1, at 1.) Plaintiff is therefore barred, under Section 1915(g), from bringing this action IFP. CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP, and dismisses this action without prejudice, under the PLRA’s “three-strikes” rule. See

(g).3 Plaintiff remains

barred, under Section 1915(g), from filing any future federal civil action IFP while he is a prisoner, unless he is under imminent threat of serious physical injury.4

2 An imminent danger is one “existing at the time the complaint is filed.” Malik v. McGinnis,

(2d Cir. 2002). A danger “that has dissipated by the time a complaint is filed” is not sufficient. Pettus v. Morgenthau,

(2d Cir. 2009). 3 Plaintiff may commence a new federal civil action by paying the required fees. If Plaintiff does so, that new civil action’s complaint will be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to dismiss any civil rights complaint from a prisoner if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 4 The Court may bar any vexatious litigant (including a nonprisoner) from filing future civil actions in this court (even if the required fees are paid) without first obtaining leave from the court. See In re Martin-Trigona,

(2d Cir. 1993) (discussing sanctions courts may impose on vexatious litigants, including “leave of court” requirement). The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing this action.

SO ORDERED. Dated: October 10, 2023 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge