Sirleaf v. Doe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division MOMOLLU V.S. SIRLEAF, SR.,

Plaintiff, Vv. Civil Action No. 3:21CV234 JIMMY DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate, has submitted this action and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The pertinent statute provides:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action [in forma pauperis] 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). As Plaintiff is aware, he has at least three other actions or appeals that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Sirleaf v. Harris, No. 19- 2520 (UNA), 2020 WL 2995015, at *3 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020); Sirleaf v. Northam, No. 3:19CV182, 2019 WL 4247824, at *5 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2019) (placing Plaintiff on “notice that with this dismissal, he now has three strikes under § 1915(g)”); Sirleaf v. McCabe, No. 7:19CV00240 (W.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2019), aff'd No. 19-5423 (4th Cir. Aug. 21, 2019); Sirleafv. Mikeljohn, No. 3:18CV562, 2019 WL 2251705, at *10 (E.D. Va. May 24, 2019); aff'd sub nom. Sirleaf v. Meiklejohn, 777 F. App’x 700 (4th Cir. 2019). Plaintiffs current complaint does not suggest that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. | Accordingly, his request to proceed in forma pauperis will be DENIED. The action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

To the extent that he wishes to bring a claim solely on his own behalf, Plaintiff remains free to submit a new complaint with the full $402 filing fee. The Court will process such a complaint as a new civil action.

An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

It is so ORDERED.

/§/

M. Hannah

United States Diktrict Judge Date: Ayn | 24 { 2o2| Richmond, Virginia

' To the contrary, Plaintiff again attempts to bring an action on behalf of a child, which the Court has already warned him more than once that he may not do. See, e. g., Sirleaf, 2019 WL 2251705, at *2-6.