ALFORD v. HENDRICKS et al, No. 3:2008cv05970 - Document 5 (D.N.J. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 6/23/2009. (ss, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY _______________________________ : : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : ROY L. HENDRICKS, et al., : : Defendants. : ________________________________ : KEITH E. ALFORD, Civil Action No. 08-5970 (JAP) O P I N I O N APPEARANCES: Keith E. Alford, Pro Se #65779 New Jersey State Prison P.O. Box 861 Trenton, NJ 08625 PISANO, District Judge Plaintiff, Keith E. Alford, seeks to bring this civil rights action in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. For the following reasons, Plaintiff s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied. BACKGROUND Plaintiff asserts that his right to access the courts has been violated. Specifically, he states: In a direct act of retribution and retaliation the defendant Roy L. Hendricks, deliberately, purposely and with malice did selectively enforce the policy and provisions of 10A:18-3.4(B) to wit the reading and censorship of this Plaintiff s legal correspondence to disrupt, and to do away with litigation against the named defendants self interest, as in Civil No. 036004 (MLC) was filed to address similar abuse of the named policy, in the diminished status of the U.S. Constitution this Plaintiff s quality of life no longer afforded the ability to protect Plaintiff s rights, and with said circumstance the named defendant is allowed to commit the perfect murder . . . . (Complt., ¶ 6). Plaintiff continues to declare that he was denied access to courts in his efforts to defraud the record. DISCUSSION Plaintiff seeks to proceed with this action in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), enacted on April 26, 1996, prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action in forma pauperis pursuant to 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); see also Keener v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 128 F.3d 143, 144-45 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that frivolousness dismissals prior to enactment of PLRA count as "strikes" under § 1915(g)). While incarcerated, Plaintiff has had at least three prior civil actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., Alford v. Brown, Civil Action No. 03-1972 (D.N.J.); Alford v. Hendricks, Civil Action No. 03-0639 (D.N.J.); Alford v. Hendricks, Civil Action No. 01-3367 (D.N.J.); Alford v. Fishman, Civil Action No. 91-5068 (D.N.J.); Alford v. Beyer, Civil Action No. 91-1132 (D.N.J.); Alford v. Caraballo, Civil Action No. 91-0751. 2 In this case, Plaintiff attempts to argue that he should be granted in forma pauperis status, despite his prior three strikes, because he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. However, even under our liberal pleading rules, construing all allegations in favor of the complainant and crediting those allegations of imminent danger Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962, 966 (3d Cir. 1998)(citing Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83, 86 (3d Cir. 1997)), Plaintiff has not asserted facts indicating imminent danger of serious physical injury. This Court makes no findings as to whether or not Defendants have violated state law, or otherwise violated Plaintiff s constitutional rights by denying him access to courts. However, this Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated imminent danger in order to override the three strikes requirement of § 1915(g). CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As set forth in the accompanying Order, Plaintiff s case will be administratively terminated. Upon submission of the filing fee within 30 days, Plaintiff may move to reopen his case. /s/ JOEL A. PISANO United States District Judge Dated: June 23, 2009 3
]]>
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.
