Dumas v. Doherty et al, No. 4:2016cv02173 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 9/30/2016. (JLG)

Download PDF
Dumas v. Doherty et al Doc. 3 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION NATHANIEL DUMAS Plaintiff, v. REBECCA DOHERTY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:16cv2173 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff pro se Nathaniel Dumas, an inmate at the Ross Correctional Institution, filed this in forma pauperis action against Defendants Mahoning County Prosecutors Rebecca Doherty and Jennifer McLaughlin, and Attorney Mark Carfolo. Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that Defendants conspired to obtain criminal convictions against him, which resulted in his current incarceration. ECF No. 1. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed. A prisoner is prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a judgment in a civil action in forma pauperis if, on three or more prior occasions, the prisoner brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The statute makes an exception to the three-strikes rule when the prisoner is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Id. Dumas has on at least three prior occasions filed an in forma pauperis inmate civil action Dockets.Justia.com (4:16cv2173) in federal court that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See Dumas v. Christian, et al., No. 4:16CV1705 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2016); Dumas v. Carfolo, et al., No. 4:14CV2828 (N.D. Ohio May 8, 2015); and Dumas v. Carfolo, et al., Case No. 4:14CV1742 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 22, 2014). As there are no allegations in the instant complaint suggesting Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, he may not proceed in forma pauperis, and this case is subject to summary dismissal. Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App’x 796, 797–98 (6th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 30, 2016 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.